W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Request for Volunteers: Polyglot spec

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 03:29:09 +0200
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>, 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>
Message-ID: <20100424032909665407.38f935b8@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Leif Halvard Silli, Sat, 24 Apr 2010 03:12:12 +0200:
> Sam Ruby, Thu, 22 Apr 2010 21:34:35 -0400:
>> On 04/22/2010 09:06 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>> Tony Ross, Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:48:27 +0000:
>>>> 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?
>>> Because as I exemplified in the rest of that message, we can then have
>>> more identical rules throughout, to the very issue. We can apply a
>>> similar principle to more elements. To HTML5 void elements, to new void
>>> elements etc.
>> Consider:
>> http://tinyurl.com/244esft

> Which had this code: <p/><b>...</b>
>> My take (non-chair, etc): Leif, what you are proposing doesn't make 
>> the rules more identical.  There are a few cases (like <li> and <td>) 
>> where empty element syntax does no harm: namely because the only 
>> valid tags that can follow are ones that would implicitly close the 
>> element in question.  But there are many more elements, such as <i> 
>> and <b>, are ones where <i/> and <b/> would most likely cause 
>> behavior that is decidely unexpected.
> I am sorry to have explained myself badly - or in to many words. 
> Because, that code example would *not* be a valid polyglot example by 
> the definition I tried to express. E.g. for <p/>, then I said: [1]
>> a minimized <p /> must be immediately followed by the end tag 
>> of its parent tag.   [substitute/parent tag/parent element/]
>   [ or be ]
>> immediately followed by  another 'p' element.
> Thus, in the hypothetical situation that it had been valid to wrap a 
> <p/> inside a <b>, then, this *would* have been valid:
> <b><p/></b>. But not this: <b/><p/>. And not this: <p/><b/>.
> And when you mention elements like <li/><li/>, then you are in fact 
> using the same principle as I did when I said that a <p></p> 
> immediately preceded by a minimized <p/> (aka: <p/><p></p>), should be 
> valid.

And as for <i/> or a <b/> and other inline elements, then I think you 
are right that there are problems. I though that something like this 
could work: 


However, it appears to be interpreted like this, in Webkit at least:

So, yes, for inline elements, then it seems like the minimized syntax 
has to be entirely forbidden.

> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1102

leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 24 April 2010 01:29:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC