- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 23:32:13 +0200
It seems to me that the WA 1.0 spec presents requirements on document conformance that are very different from each other in spirit in a seemingly arbitrary way. On one hand, some elements are required to have significant inline content or are barred from having traditional flow content while, on the other hand, the requirements on attribute occurrence are very lax and sectional elements are not required to have any content at all. These requirements seem very inconsistent in spirit to me. Obviously, a browser won't catch fire and the sky won't fall if a link element does not have an href attribute and a rel attribute or if a blockquote is empty. However, the consequences of having both inline and block content in list items or lacking significant inline content in paragraphs won't make the sky fall and the browser catch fire, either. Yet, a link element that lacks the href and rel attributes the doesn't make any sense. Sure, a script could add those attributes, but then it could add the entire element while at it or it could add significant inline content to a paragraph. To make document conformance a more useful concept for the purpose of catching author errors, I suggest that the following attributes be made required: href and rel on link href on base name and content on meta (other than the encoding decl) src on img code, height and width on applet name and value on param To allow user agents see whether the author provided the empty string as the alternative text of whether the author just didn't care, I suggest that the alt attribute on img be made optional. The above- mentioned elements are useless without the listed attributes. The img element is not useless without alt, so editors have an incentive to allow authors to insert img elements without alternative text but do not have an incentive to allow useless link elements, for example. Since sectional elements are document-oriented rather than Web application-oriented, it seems to me it would make sense to require them to contain one or more block elements as opposed to zero or more. On the other hand, I have doubts about the requirement of significant inline content. When the W3C said that paragraphs mustn't be empty, various applications started emitting <p> </p>. If the WHAT WG says that paragraphs must contend significant inline content, are the developers of those applications suddenly going to decide not to allow them to paragraphs to be saved or are they going to come up with an even more crufty work-around to comply with the machine- checkable requirements of the spec? -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2006 13:32:13 UTC