- From: Hallvord R M Steen <hallvors@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:27:04 +0100
On 30/11/06, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote: > > Closing slash on void elements > > sounds like a good example of "this is invalid because we're sticking > > to our fixed ideas"[1] rather than "this is invalid for technical > > reasons like causing ambiguities in DOM parsing". So I support Sam's > > approach. > Well, nothing per the parsing section causes "ambiguities in DOM parsing" > (assuming I understand what that means). So I'm not sure what you're > suggesting. It's the core of the debate, namely if <img /> isn't technically a problem why are validators required to flag it as invalid? The counter examples are comparisons with <div /> which isn't parsed into the DOM most would expect when sent as HTML, and corner cases like <base href=http://example.org/bar/> - now, how do you resolve relative URLs in this document? This is the sort of ambiguity the DOM parsing has to take into account - caused by the usage of forward closing slashes within tags. If the spec can specify simple non-ambiguous ways of parsing that like the author expects I think we can relax validation requirements like Sam wants. > > That said, HTML5 must see > > > > <input type="checkbox" checked/> > > > > as a checkbox input with a "checked" attribute. > > It does. Included in the discussion to make sure HTML5 continues to do so even if the change I want (more liberal validation) is taken in. -- Hallvord R. M. Steen
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 07:27:04 UTC