- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 01:47:10 -0400
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote: > >>Ian Hickson wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote: >>> >>> >>>>HTML 4 #REQUIREs the 'content' attribute for <meta>. It does not >>>>require 'name' probably only because the DTD can't express a >>>>requirement of "either 'name' or 'http-equiv'": as WA1 notes, a >>>><meta> element without a 'name' attribute isn't defining any meta >>>>data. Is there a reason why these attributes are nonetheless all >>>>optional in WA1? >>> >>>What would it mean for them to be required? >> >>It would mean that leaving the attribute out violates a conformance >>requirement, making the document non-conformant. > > > ...the advantage of which being...? > > I don't understand the point in making this code: > > // this element will be used later > var meta = document.createElement('meta'); > > ...non-conformant. Hmm. I think you need to think a bit on the conformance requirements you want to have for documents. If you're interpreting "required" like that, you'd run into the same problem with *any* required attribute or child content. It's not a useful definition. ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 18 July 2005 22:47:10 UTC