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

Re: Introducing the W3C HTML/XML Task Force

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
Message-ID: <20101229204437423650.337e8aae@xn--mlform-iua.no>
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 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 29 December 2010 19:45:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:28 UTC