- From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:20:09 -0700
- To: "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "HTMLWG WG" <public-html@w3.org>
> > [ ... ] > >> 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? I see the same situation for <param> in an <object>. These were treated sort of like <meta> with some situations where you don't use the / to signal a close tag? I'm not sure about the difference between processing environments but I do see now that if I expected XML rules as I know them and are serious about it, then how can <source> without a closing signal work as expected in an xml parser? > Support has to be hard coded into the Web browser I guess I can see this hard coded into a parser that does html served as text/htnl, but actually without further study, I don't know how to code it into an xml parser used if served as application/xhtml+xml. The <source> with no closing should keill the xml machine at some point? Now I see why I might always put those end / in there by default even though not actually needed in html processor with fixit steps. . Also, is this about the same workaround for attributes that are not written as a name='value' pair but freestanding as a boolean? Thanks and Best Regards, Joe . > -- > leif halvard silli > >> ~TJ
Received on Friday, 23 October 2009 22:20:50 UTC