W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2007

RE: [whatwg] void elements vs. content model = "empty"

From: Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:04:59 +0200
To: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001d01c7b2c6$42ca6e60$1a01080a@POCZTOWIEC>

Well, thanks for the explanation.  The explanation lacks one point though:
such content will simply get dropped by innerHTML.  I do not have an opinion
whether it is right or wrong, I just wanted to say it explicitly because it
sounds odd.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 12:45 AM
To: Kristof Zelechovski
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Subject: RE: [whatwg] void elements vs. content model = "empty"

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Kristof Zelechovski wrote:
> A void element cannot have any content because there is no way to specify
> in the source.  Such a relation is called entailment.

No, the syntax doesn't impose requirements on the content model. For 
example, the syntax doesn't let you put <ul>s inside <p>s, but the content 
model allows it. It would be quite possible for us to allow content inside 
void elements, it would just mean you couldn't represent that content 
model in text/html (you'd have to use XML or some other serialisation of 
the DOM, like JSON).
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 23:06:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:10 UTC