- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:11:32 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
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] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8038 >> 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] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete#Planned_obsolescence >> 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