- From: Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:48:27 +0000
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: Eliot Graff <eliotgra@microsoft.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "tag@w3.org" <tag@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "mjs@apple.com" <mjs@apple.com>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>
On Wednesday, April 21, 2010 9:26 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > PS: I hope that technical limitations rather than "this is simpler for authors" > will guide the speccing of this spec. It should define a common denominator > for HTML5 and XHTMl5. But not anything more strict than that. E.g. I would > like to know when I can use a minimized '<p />' > *and* get the same DOM in both XHTML and HTML, rather than having a > "simple" rule which requires me to *always* avoid the minimized <p />. While sometimes the differences between HTML and XML parsers can result in islands of common ground, I find emphasizing a path that makes writing polyglot simpler for authors more useful. Why does someone really need to know the corner cases where they can use a minimized '<p />' if '<p></p>' works everywhere? Ultimately I recognize the balance between simplicity and complexity is a bit case-by-case and sometimes a deeper explanation is needed to enable less common use cases. I just don't see such a use case for the example you provided. -Tony
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 22:49:04 UTC