- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:35:14 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > > > > > > - - The markup language specification should define the meanings of > > > elements and attributes, not the way they are processed. > > > > It should do both, if it wants interoperability. > > So you mean XHTML should be both declarative and procedural? That leads > to more problems than I can imagine. I didn't say that (I'm not even sure what you really mean). But there are plenty of things in HTML for which the processing model must be well defined: in a <script> element, what should UAs do if they find non-text nodes? Should they concatentate all text nodes and ignore other nodes? Should they concatenate all the text node descendants of element? What about unexpected children of <col> elements? What order should overlapping shapes in <map> elements be taken? What should a <tfoot> do if it is found after a <tbody>? How should the label for <option> elements be determined, where there is/isn't an optgroup, or is/isn't a label attribute? What should nested <em> tags mean? What about nested <strong> tags? What about if <em> and <strong> elements are mixed? Note that most of those actually _aren't_ defined by the HTML4 specs. > > > Do you mean [the summary element] should be treated as a <caption> of > > > second grade? > > > > No; I mean it would be rendered instead of the table content. That, at > > least, is my reading of the spec's vague definition. > > That's interesting; I could not have imagined such an interpretation. > [...] Yeah, your interpretation makes more sense. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 16:35:19 UTC