- From: Ian Devlin <ian.devlin@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 20:47:34 +0200
- To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOYOhStKRNg=S3yqv0JypLf8uwYNOL_sp7UgXBtscNortrv-og@mail.gmail.com>
Thank you Mike for your informative reply, and for removing this constraint from the validator! ====================================== Ian Devlin iandevlin.com <http://www.iandevlin.com> @iandevlin <http://www.twitter.com/iandevlin> skype: idevlin ====================================== On 9 July 2015 at 20:08, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote: > Ian Devlin <ian.devlin@gmail.com>, 2015-07-03 12:13 +0200: > > Archived-At: < > http://www.w3.org/mid/CAOYOhSvESKpwch7tK6tB06YxeM63UTSE44cM174JedmKRAJTtw@mail.gmail.com > > > > > > There is, apparently, a constraint on the <time> element that forbids > them > > from being nested. This constraint is not mentioned in the specification > > itself but I did find it mentioned in an old, out of date, document ( > > http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/time.html#time-constraints). The W3C > > validator also marks nested <time> elements as an error. > ... > > Does anyone know why this constraint was added? > > Hixie added that constraint in 2009 https://html5.org/r/3692 and then > dropped it in 2011 https://html5.org/r/6783 when he briefly replaced the > <time> element with the <data> element. A couple weeks later, he re- > introduced a different <time> element https://html5.org/r/6827 that didn’t > have that same constraint which the old <time> element had. > > > Is it still necessary? > > I think it’s not. Otherwise Hixie would have re-specced it with that > constraint when he re-defined it in its current form. > > > Or is what I am saying irrelevant, that this contraint has been removed > > from the spec. and the validator has not yet been updated? > > The validator hasn’t been updated. I added the code in 2009 to check that > constraint around the same time Hixie initially added the constraint to the > spec. And I haven’t touched that line of the code since. > > So thanks for catching it. It’s just a bug in the validator—or was, since > I’ve fixed it just now in > > https://github.com/validator/validator/commit/44c7b8554d592f181dd0479160e8e02fde043886 > and pushed the fix to https://validator.w3.org/nu/ > > —Mike > > -- > Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike >
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2015 18:48:08 UTC