- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:49:00 +0100
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > Brad Neuberg wrote: > >>> What should text/html flavor conformance checkers say about <foo />? >>> >>> Silently treat as <foo>> as per SGML? >>> Silently treat as <foo> as per real world? >>> Report a warning? >>> Report an error? >>> >>> What about <foo/>? >>> >>> I am leaning towards reporting an error. >> >> >> Unfortunately, <foo /> is the real world way of "hacking" XHTML >> support into IE, since IE will belch if you give <foo/>. You also >> have to serve it up as text/html for IE..... You should probably >> transform it into what people expect it in the real world, which is >> turning <foo /> into <foo>. > > > That was my first though too, until Henri pointed out he was talking > about conformance checkers and not about parsers. Is there a good reason that <foo /> cannot be valid HTML5? Any parser which doesn't support <foo /> also doesn't support much of the web content produced in the last 2 years. In this case a conformance checker could emit a warning (maybe only a strict warning) since it's not impossible that people will expect HTML5 to work in a parser that's incompatible with real-world HTML4. -- "But if science you say still sounds too deep, Just do what Beaker does, just shrug and 'Meep!'" -- Dr. Bunsen Honeydew & Beaker of Muppet Labs
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2005 06:49:00 UTC