- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 14:04:34 +0100
- To: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:47:53 +0100, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: >> I think we shouldn't put the parsing algorithm on a pedestal while not >> giving the same treatment to the default UA style sheet or other >> requirements related to an element that have to be implemented. > > The difference between the parsing algorithm on the UA stylesheet is > that authors can put display: block; in the author stylesheet during > the transition. I guess that's fair. > That said, the example jgraham showed to me on IRC convinced me that > if <main> is introduced to the platform, it makes sense to make it > parse like <article>. :-( (I’m not a fan of the consequences of the > “feature” of making </p> optional. Too bad that feature is ancient and > it’s too late on undo it.) For the record, the example is: <main><p></main><p> (The last <p> can be anything.) > I guess I’ll focus on objecting to new void elements and especially to > new children of <head>. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 13:05:27 UTC