- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:29:23 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. On 09-10-23 04.28: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net> wrote: >> Hi Ian, >> >> " ... are only short-term workarounds, and the same applies to, e.g., >> <source> in <video>, or <command>, ... " >> >> this quote was in another topic but it caught my eye because I'm not sure >> how <source> constitutes a workaround; what is the problem allowing multiple >> <source > elements is not solving? [ ... ] > You misunderstood slightly. ^_^ Ian was referring to the fact that > <source>, being a new void element, doesn't work properly in current > browsers (they treat it as as the start tag of an unknown element). > <command> is another new void element with similar problems. So what's the workaround for <source>? XHTML syntax? <source /> is valid HTML 5 and, when created via document.createElement(), works perfectly in IE6: it isn't treated as the start tag of a unknown element. And creating workarounds for other legacy browsers than Internet Explorer, is not nearly as common ... <source></source> also works. So, to validate as XML and serve as text/html would work ... <source> has one "advantage" over <source/> and <source></source>: Support has to be hard coded into the Web browser - it doesn't rely on the "distributed extensibility" of using non-void elements. Perhaps that's the crux? -- leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 23 October 2009 16:29:58 UTC