- From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:03:02 +0100
2006/11/30, Hallvord R M Steen: > > 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. How about: a slash is ignored in the start tag of a void element if it appears just before the closing > and it unambiguously is not part of an attribute value. - <br/> => no attribute, ignored - <base href="http://example.org/bar"/> => after the closing quote, ignored - <base href=http://example.org/bar /> => preceded by a space, so its not part of the attribute value => ignored - <base href=http://example.org/bar/> => could be part of the attribute value, so treated as *being* part of it -- Thomas Broyer
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 08:03:02 UTC