- From: Abigail <abigail@uk.fnx.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 17:12:01 +0100
- To: www-html@w3.org
Sunil Mishra wrote: > > \\ The idea is that you can use all the tags you mention to "dress up" > \\ a form. It is not a strict requirement, but all the tags which belong > \\ in forms should appear in the context of a form somewhere. Things like > \\ <SUP><TEXTAREA NAME=foo ROWS=1 COLS=1></SUP> are legal, but quite > \\ pointless. > \\ > \\ It's not a parser's job to make sense of HTML. That is up to the > \\ renderer. It seems reasonable to me that you can safely ignore form > \\ tags which do not appear inside a form. > \\ > \\ Galactus > \\ > > True, but HTML 2.0 offered a perfectly good way out of this situation > without introducing this kind of ambiguity. They added an inclusion to the > form element in the DTD. > > <!ELEMENT FORM - - %body.content -(FORM) +(INPUT|SELECT|TEXTAREA)> > > Why wasn't the same method followed for HTML 3.2? I mean, was there a > reason, or was this just an oversight? The problem is that the inclusion method leads to problems. It makes the following syntax _legal_: <FORM METHOD = POST ACTION = "url"> <TABLE> <INPUT TYPE = TEXT VALUE = "Look ma! Outside of a row!"> <TR> <TEXTAREA>And this is outside of any cell</TEXTAREA> <TD>Blah</TD> </TR> </TABLE> </FORM> Not very nice either. The inclusion method means that the included elements are legal *everywhere* in the element, even where they don't make sense at all. Abigail
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 1996 12:12:02 UTC