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

Re: HTML5 Recommendation document review comments

From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:25:38 -0500
Message-ID: <7c2a12e21001031125j50366bdfl54738df96af9ff92@mail.gmail.com>
To: Don Brutzman <brutzman@nps.edu>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Don Brutzman <brutzman@nps.edu> wrote:
> Didn't see any document metadata via <meta> tags inside the
> document itself.

If by "inside the document itself" you mean "inside the <body>", I
don't think this is allowed unless the itemprop attribute is set, is
it?  There are examples in the microdata section:


> Could also add a <link> entry providing a document icon, which is
> helpful in tabbed browsers.

Isn't this what rel="icon" does?


It doesn't specify what UI the icon is to be used for, but HTML5
doesn't usually try to specify UI.

> About 2 dozen minor Tidy warnings shown by Mozilla that could be
> cleaned up.

Are you sure that Tidy understands HTML5?  The spec is written in
HTML5, which has different syntax from earlier HTML standards.

> Further, an empty string isn't
> allowed as an enumeration value in XML Schema
> enumeration lists, so it is not clear how to
> represent it in such a context.

I'm pretty sure compatibility with XML Schema is not a design goal of
HTML5.  There's already a validator that can validate far more than
XML Schema can, though: http://html5.validator.nu

> states
>        Element.tagName and Node.nodeName
>        These attributes must return element names converted to
>        ASCII _uppercase_, regardless of the case with which they
>        were created.
> and then
>        The canonical form of HTML markup is all-lowercase;
> also in section 3.3 APIs in HTML documents
>        when looking at HTML elements, the argument must first be
>        converted to ASCII lowercase
> This seems inconsistent.  Should the first _uppercase_ instead be lowercase?

I don't think so.  I get the behavior described in the spec, which I
assume is required for historical reasons:

Received on Sunday, 3 January 2010 19:26:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:06 UTC