Re: Short-term workarounds - - <source> in <video>

Maciej Stachowiak On 09-10-26 00.28:

> On Oct 25, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Leif Halvard Silli On 09-10-25 00.34:
>>> Maciej Stachowiak On 09-10-24 01.27:
>>>> On Oct 23, 2009, at 3:41 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>>>> Why can't HTML 5 permit that?
>>>> I think it would be reasonable (and perhaps on balance a good  
>>>> idea) to  allow a close tag for new void elements. Though it would  
>>>> have to  immediately follow the open tag - a close tag separated  
>>>> by content  would have to be treated as just a stray close tag and  
>>>> a parse error.  Otherwise the open tag alone wouldn't work, since  
>>>> you would have to  parse to the end of the document to know if  
>>>> there is a close tag.
>>> Sounds reasonable! Filed a bug report for the issue [1] including a  
>>> Liv DOM Viewer demo of browser behaviors [2].
>>> [1]
>> There is also the option of making closing tags for void elements  
>> "obsolete but conforming".
> I don't think "obsolete but conforming" is the best choice - we're  
> talking about a new construct that authors would use to help them  
> transitiion, not an old feature that is ok in older content but should  
> be phased out in new content. Thanks for filing the bug, by the way.

All new (= unknown) elements are expected to have closing tags. 
Thus it is possible to claim </source> to be obsoleted, I think.

I can see one bad thing with "obsolete but valid" for "</source>": 
authors could perhaps be made to think that this feature - 
"</source>"  - isn't necessary anymore.

What alternatives are there, if the point is solely to help 
authors to transition? Introduce a new class of transitionally 
valid features - aka a pre-obsoleted/planned obsolete class? [1]


>> I think it would be possible to have such a rule for *all* void  
>> elements - not only the new ones - as user agents deals with things  
>> like <img></img> anyhow.
> Yes, but I don't think there is ever any reason to write <img></img>  
> instead of <img /> or <img>.

It would align the syntax more with XHTML. And one could claim 
that such a rule would simplify the rules. But I see your point.
leif halvard silli

Received on Monday, 26 October 2009 01:12:08 UTC