- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:46:36 +0100
- To: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>, "Steve Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 11:40:57 +0100, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Anne, > > That feedback as stated was mainly for Hixie, who dismissed it. > > I have sought further opinion, but do not have the expertise to know > what I > need to do with it. > > for example, I get the sense that implementers in general do not want to > mess with the parsing algorithm, so does that mean. I don't need to put > anything in the spec? That's right. I'm not convinced that we should freeze the parser now just because we have reached interop. I think not changing the parser here makes <main> (and other future elements; whatever we do here sets a precedent for future elements) inconsistent with the rest of HTML. In the long term, having <main> and <aside> parse differently just because we didn't want to change the behavior from 2012-era browsers will seem silly. Moreover, it will complicate the already complicated rules about when </p> may be omitted (in terms of how people think of the rule), which means that we might have to say that </p> is always required. I'm also not convinced by Henri's assertion that <p> will not precede <main> in conforming content. <p> is used for all sorts of things, not just a paragraph of text. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 11:47:16 UTC