W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Behavior Attachment Redux, was Re: HTML element content models vs. components

From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:55:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CADh5Ky1NL+hgf_GgxGLnuktFKjWDiAjDuvO8z+yZrGjPakeYww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Hixie The Pixie <ianh@google.com>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 9/28/11 2:24 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
>> Can you help me understand what the issues with fallback are?
> Sure.  If I want to attach a component to a <table> and to do that I have to
> write:
>  <x-my-table>
>    <tr><td>Content</td></tr>
>  <x-my-table>
> and somewhere before that point register that x-my-table should be treated
> as a table, then the whole thing falls apart in a UA that doesn't understand
> that registration.
> That is, this approach works if components are only used for situations that
> absolutely cannot work without the component available, as far as I can
> tell.

Ah, I understand! It's the same issue that you and Roland were
articulating in the other thread.

So, this is really a parsing issue, right? We have some invariants
about parsing context validity for a (small, but angry) subset of HTML

Hixie, is this the same problem you were mentioned as "doesn't have
fallback behavior"?


> -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 18:55:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:24 UTC