- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 11:20:11 -0800
- To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html@w3.org
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 4:54 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >> > Furthermore, not ever introducing new void elements is hardly a fix to >> > the problem of not being able to introduce new void elements! >> >> The problem is *not* the inability to introduce them. The problem is the >> inability of producers and consumers to decide which syntax to use for >> unknown elements. > > I don't understand. Producers know which syntax to use because the spec > very precisely defines the exact syntax to use in the "Writing HTML > documents" section, and consumers know how to process this syntax because > of the very precise rules in the "Parsing HTML documents" section. > > What's the problem? So, sort of restarting this thread again. Here are the problems that would be good to solve: 1. When a new version of HTML6 comes out, it should be possible to write a document that uses elements from HTML6, but that parses to the same DOM in a browser that both supports HTML6 and HTML5. Ideally such a document would also validate as valid HTML6 and HTML5. Note that this doesn't mean that *every* document should parse to the same DOM, just that it is possible to write one that uses a new element but still produces the same DOM in both parsers. So for example it's IMHO ok to require that </p> elements are closed and that no tags are missnested for the same DOM to be produced. 2. Make it possible to create a generic serializer that takes a DOM and produces HTML that parses into the same DOM. Independent of which HTML version (>= 5) is used to parse. 3. Write a generic parser that can be used to parse HTML markup of any version (>= 5) into a DOM. 1 seems very important to me to allow for adoption of new elements. I'd hate it if people were forced to use document.write hacks along with browser detection to be able to use new elements. 2 seems important to allow generic tools, such as XSLT or DOM to produce HTML. I doubt all tools that produce HTML will be aware of the semantics of HTML and thus know which elements are empty and which elements are block-level. Or is that the case today? 3 would be great for the same reasons 2 is, but on the consumption side rather than on the production side. Unfortunately this one might be impossible to do if we want to ever introduce block-level elements. The reason I'm in a couple of places say HTML5 or great is simply that HTML4 and older is a lost cause. / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 19:20:47 UTC