- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:03:59 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5444 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com --- Comment #6 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> 2009-02-05 19:03:58 --- A little further investigation shows that the view I espoused in comment #4 was ill-informed. I do think the goal of making legacy browsers ignore namespaced elements is worth trying to achieve. But as far as I can tell, both current and legacy browsers achieve the "ignore tags you don't understand" goal under the current rules; it is (as far as I can tell) not necessary to make special provision forbidding serialization of unknown empty elements as <foo/> or <foo:bar/>; both forms are treated just like <foo /> and <foo></foo>, i.e. both are successfully ignored. I had thought that the form <foo/> would cause legacy browsers, or legacy mode in some current browsers, to treat / or /> or > as content characters; this appears not to be the case. Tests on current-ish versions of Safari, Firefox, and Opera, and also on Netscape Navigator 4.79 and IE 5.5 (the oldest browsers anyone I could find on the spur of the moment had access to) show no / or > anywhere in the display, for any of <br>, <br/>, <br />, <br></br>. If I now understand correctly, the blank in <br /> is required for legacy browsers not because otherwise / or /> gets displayed, but because <br/> has no effect (i.e. the element is ignored, presumably because the legacy parser thinks it has found an element named "br/"). During the WG call this morning I had agreed to file a request for enhancement suggesting that HTML and XHTML modes provide special rules for empty unknown elements. That no longer seems necessary or sensible. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 19:04:09 UTC