[whatwg] Content Model Restrictions on table>tr in HTML

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>
> * Ian Hickson wrote:
>> No, it doesn't. It doesn't define the syntax at all. It defines how to 
>> parse the syntax, and what to report as a syntax error, but that 
>> section has no normative criteria that apply to documents.
> 
> That is quite irrelevant.

I respectively disagree.


> The definition of the parsing algorithm along with the 
> syntax-independent requirements severely limits what these criteria 
> could be; such criteria could only define that some documents are 
> non-conforming even though they parse into conforming trees without 
> generating parse errors; doing anything beyond that would contradict the 
> rest of the draft.

I agree that the requirements could be deduced. But unless they are 
actually there, they aren't actually there. If you see what I mean.


> It is actually possible to construct a document that parses into a 
> conforming tree without generating parse errors that does not con- form 
> to the requirements in section 9.1, odd as that may seem.

Could you elaborate on this? I don't doubt that there are mistakes, but I 
am not aware of any.


>> Such a document is impossible to construct declaratively with the HTML 
>> format, it can only be declaratively constructed with the XML syntax.
> 
> My point exactly.

What is your point? I'm confused. The syntax section is clear that you 
can't create such a document. This is, in fact, one very important example 
of why the syntax section is important -- if an authoring tool tried to 
generate a document that had a <pre> inside a <p>, it would be 
non-conforming, but only because of the syntax section (9.1.2.5:2), not 
because of the parser section -- the parser section wouldn't be able to 
determine there was an error.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Monday, 4 December 2006 23:32:26 UTC