- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 20:44:37 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@marklogic.com>, public-html@w3.org
Julian Reschke, Wed, 29 Dec 2010 19:39:30 +0100: > On 29.12.2010 19:22, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> Julian Reschke, Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:56:35 +0100: >>> On 28.12.2010 22:39, Ian Hickson wrote: >>> That being said, it *is* growing partly. For instance, HTML5 didn't >>> need to add new void elements, and it could have ruled them out for >>> the future. >> >> Regarding <void>: 'chasm' or respect for the HTML system/identy? If you >> have parsing in mind, how can one say no to void elements in HTML >> without saying no to<void/> in XHTML as well? Which option would you > > I don't think I understand the question. HTML has void elements. That they work different from void elements in XHTML is just how HTML is. I see, below, that you suggest stop creating more void elements. That could perhaps be described as stranglinG HTML syntax - not respecting how it works in HTML. Though, OTOH, to say that no more void elements should be created is, I admit, another way to accept how things work, in HTML. >> suggest: >> 1) Parse <newVoid> as non-void. >> Parse <newVoid/> and <img> as void. >> Require authors to use XHTML syntax - '/>'. >> 2) Parse <newVoid> like <img> is parsed. >> Require authors to use XHTML syntax: >> <img/> + <img></img>, <newVoid/> + <newVoid></newVoid> >> >> I think HTML5 is currently following the second option, with the >> exception that <newVoid></newVoid> and <img></img> is not permitted. >> The reason for not permitting <newVoid></newVoid> and <img></img> is >> probably the problem related to '</br>'. > > My proposal is to not allow any new void elements, and thus make > parsing and serialization predictable in the future. Also, I think > that the new void elements in HTML5 should have been non-void as well. I actually think we would have come a long way if only <newVoid></newVoid> was permitted. It would be logical to allow old void elements to be writen as, for example <img></img>, as well - perhaps with the exception of </br>. The fact that this is not permitted, makes it more difficult to, legally, extend HTML5 with new elements. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 29 December 2010 19:45:26 UTC