- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:24:19 +0200
- To: Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Leif Halvard Silli, Sun, 27 Jun 2010 16:45:59 +0200: > Kornel Lesinski, Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:12:54 +0100: >> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 05:48:16 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli: >> >>> And also: Every time the HTML4 validator discover an element in an >>> illegal context, it typically tells you to nest it inside a <object> or >>> <map> or <button> if you want to have it there. >>> >>> I find it hard to believe that all these things are side effects of the >>> fact that HTML4 is expressed as a DTD. >> >> Note that analogous use of <INS> and <DEL> is explicitly forbidden >> in HTML4: >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#h-9.4 > > I suppose you mean this: ? > > ]] > ILLEGAL EXAMPLE: > The following is not legal HTML. > <P> > <INS><DIV>...block-level content...</DIV></INS> > </P> > [[ > >> Given that I think it was not intention to have "wildcard" elements >> in HTML 4 that allow violation of content model "if you want to have >> it there". > > I do not follow, at all. The purpose of <object> is to _embed_ things - > including fallback. Whereas the purpose of <ins> and <del> is to show > editorial changes. > > With regard to the example from HTML4 above, then it would not be > possible, due to limitations of HTML that Baron explained, if it did > not contain the <ins> element. That is, the following version does not > reflect the DOM of the illegal HTML4 example: > > <P> > <DIV>...block-level content...</DIV> > </P> > > And hence, since it is not possible to have code like that in HTML, it > also does not make sense to make it legal via <ins> or <del>. It would > be to permit authors to cheat/lie if it were permitted. The purpose of > <ins> and <del> is not to document that the author corrected his/her > code from illegal code//impossible DOM to legal code/possible DOM! With regard to your comments about the HTML4 validator: ]] Personally I don't like the error message suggesting insertion of <object>, because it's misleading. It's extremely unlikely that author wanted to embed an object, put fallback in, but forgot the <object> element itself. [[ [et cetera] So, if we try to validaete <h1><h2></h2></h1>, the we get: [In the W3 _XHTML1_ validator:] Line 9, Column 8: document type does not allow element "h2" here; missing one of "object", "applet", "map", "iframe", "button", "ins", "del" start-tag [In the W3 _HTML4_ validator:] Line 9, Column 8: document type does not allow element "H2" here; missing one of "APPLET", "OBJECT", "MAP", "IFRAME", "BUTTON" start-tag I must admit that it does not rhyme with my thinking that XHTML allows <ins> and <del> here - this to me seems like a bug in the XHTML validation service. Which I have now filed. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10022 -- leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 27 June 2010 15:24:53 UTC