- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 21:24:18 +0100
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@marklogic.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 29.12.2010 20:44, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > ... >>> 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 XML doesn't have void elements in the sense of HTML; it has a notation for empty elements, but that works consistently for all elements. > 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. The problem with void elements in HTML is that you need to know the vocabulary to parse them. With SGML (as far as I understand) that wasn't a problem, because you always had a DTD. With HTML as of today, this is not the case. You can't introduce new void elements in the future without changing the parser (again, that's my understanding). That's why I think it shouldn't be done, and that doing so in HTML5 already was a mistake. Note it also affects serializers; the main reason why the XSLT HTML output method needs to be updated are the new void elements. >>> 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. Exactly. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 29 December 2010 20:25:01 UTC