W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2006

[whatwg] Table integrity and conformance

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 01:07:16 +1100
Message-ID: <45533614.4080606@lachy.id.au>
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> I don't have strong feelings about whether tfoot should be allowed
> before, after or either before or after tbodys.

I'd allow before because it's conforming in HTML4 and it works and I'd 
allow after because it's quite commonly done that way anyway, and I 
can't think of any good reason to disallow either.

>> ( thead.elem?, tfoot.elem? & tbody.elem+ )
> 
> That doesn't look right to me. I think you meant this:
> ( thead.elem?, (  ( tfoot.elem?, tbody.elem+ ) | ( tbody.elem+, tfoot.elem? ) ) )

That's what I had first, but then I thought it could be condensed to the
other one.  Since (a & b) is equivalent to (a, b)|(b, a), aren't both of 
those equivalent as well?

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 9 November 2006 06:07:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:49 UTC