On Nov 30, 2006, at 00:18, James Graham wrote:
I tentatively support the idea that trailing slashes on
singleton[1] elements should not be a parse error.
Me, too, and I'm past the tentative phase.
I don't think it has any actual technical merit
OTOH, the blog.whatwg.org WordPress
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Mark Baker wrote:
And to answer your other question, the proposed new media type for Atom
entry documents would only solve the problem for entries. It wouldn't
solve them for the MHTML-like Atom document I described, nor any other
non-feed use of
I've been meaning to send a rambling discussion of annotations to either
the www-html or whatwg lists at some point. However, I would vehemently
stress that it is not that uncommon for notes and marginalia to
themselves have notes or marginalia, and it would seem particularly odd
to allow that in
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I don't think it has any actual technical merit
OTOH, the blog.whatwg.org WordPress lipsticking drill was a total waste
of time from a technical point of view. It was purely about public
relations and politics.
As an alternative to being perceived as a lipsticking
On Nov 30, 2006, at 4:53 AM, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
[nested annotations]
and it would seem particularly odd to allow that in the limited
space of paper but not the free expanse of hypertext.
I think one reason why existing content models exclude them is
the problem of how to render them.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:51:36 +0100, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It has to allow two authoring syntaxes. One HTML and one XML. I thought
we were past that discussion?
I fully expected my proposal to either be bounced immediately as sheer
lunacy, or for someone to quickly point to the
Hi All:
Being new to this list, I've been following this thread with interest and
have some questions and comments:
As for my questions:
1.) I read the FAQ http://blog.whatwg.org/faq/ and it seemed to imply that
HTML 5 and XHTML where not at odds with each other? Did I misread that,
because
Hi,
The syntax section says:
A thead element's end tag may be omitted if the thead
element is immediately followed by a tbody or tr element.
Tables created by the HTML parser in conforming HTML5 will always have a
tbody element. Further, the tbody start tag is also optional if it starts
The sense I am gathering is that the proposal is not obviously insane, and
in fact is a bit novel in that such a narrowly scoped adoption of XML syntax
-- i.e., only to the extent that it both reflects the web as widely
practiced and only to the extent that doing such does not introduce
ambiguity
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:14:03 +0100, Hallvord R M Steen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW, it sounds sane to me to align validation as much as possible
with the UA parsing in a way that issues that aren't really problems
for the UA aren't flagged as invalid. Closing slash on void elements
sounds
On Nov 30, 2006, at 14:15, Sam Ruby wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I don't think it has any actual technical merit
OTOH, the blog.whatwg.org WordPress lipsticking drill was a total
waste of time from a technical point of view. It was purely about
public relations and politics.
As an
Hi,
From: Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think basically the argument is it would help people and the counter
argument is it would confuse people. We need evidence to back up these
arguments so we can make a solid decision. The only relevant data I have
is that 50% of the web uses trailing
On 30/11/06, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Closing slash on void elements
sounds like a good example of this is invalid because we're sticking
to our fixed ideas[1] rather than this is invalid for technical
reasons like causing ambiguities in DOM parsing. So I support Sam's
2006/11/30, Mark Baker:
The real problem here AIUI - at least in the context of HTML 5's
inferred rel=feed bit - is not just entry documents, it's any Atom
document which wouldn't normally be considered a feed by a typical
user; something that most people would be interested in subscribing
to.
On 11/30/06, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/30/06, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has to allow two authoring syntaxes. One HTML and one XML. I thought we
were past that discussion?
The sense I am gathering is that the proposal is not obviously insane, and
in fact is a
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 17:16 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Without labels, I do think that regardless of how the HTML5 spec
turns out, WordPress has an architectural flaw in its methodology of
producing markup. Since the flaw is in the architecture, I am not
optimistic of it getting fixed
2006/11/30, Hallvord R M Steen:
Well, nothing per the parsing section causes ambiguities in DOM parsing
(assuming I understand what that means). So I'm not sure what you're
suggesting.
It's the core of the debate, namely if img / isn't technically a
problem why are validators required to
Hallvord R M Steen wrote:
It's the core of the debate, namely if img / isn't technically a
problem why are validators required to flag it as invalid? The counter
examples are comparisons with div / which isn't parsed into the DOM
most would expect when sent as HTML, and corner cases like
base
base href=http://example.org/bar/
Just require quotes around attribute values like
HTML should have done 15 years ago.
You can require all that you want but we have to specify how to
parse content that is out there with this exact error. Anyway, this
discussion is really about validation.
Le 30 nov. 2006 à 10:16, Henri Sivonen a écrit :
Without labels, I do think that regardless of how the HTML5 spec
turns out, WordPress has an architectural flaw in its methodology
of producing markup. Since the flaw is in the architecture, I am
not optimistic of it getting fixed in
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 15:21 -0500, Elliotte Harold wrote:
That's only plausible if [...] All browsers that accept XHTML served as
text/html accept XHTML
served as application/xhtml+xml.
This isn't required at all. All we really need is content
transformation. If systems like WordPress start
On Nov 30, 2006, at 21:48, Michel Fortin wrote:
The best way someone could fix the resulting tag soup would
probably be to pass the result through HTML Tidy. And it should be
pretty straightforward since the tidy library has been part of PHP
since version 5.
I noticed, but it is not
On Nov 30, 2006, at 17:57, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 17:16 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Without labels, I do think that regardless of how the HTML5 spec
turns out, WordPress has an architectural flaw in its methodology of
producing markup. Since the flaw is in the
On 11/30/06, Michel Fortin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can't really have a document that is both HTML5 and XHTML5 at the
same time if we keep the !DOCTYPE HTML declaration however.
Why not?
- Sam Ruby
Hi,
From: Mark Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11/30/06, Mikko Rantalainen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about introducing a new rel keyword: nonfeed?
I just suggested that on the Atom lists.
I don't see why this:
link rel=alternate href=foo.atom
...isn't good enough. It is a hyperlink to an
Hi,
Shouldn't The address element and The figure element sections be moved to
the Paragraphs section?
Regards,
Simon Pieters
_
Martin Stenmarck som ringsignal http://msn.cellus.se/
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
Fair enough. I'm not sure what a good solution would be then.
Specifying rel=alternate without specifying the type= when you're
using Atom as a non-feed format seems like the only workable one.
How about introducing a new rel keyword:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Thomas Broyer wrote:
I'd prefer basing autodiscovery on the media types and not at all on the
relationships. A feed relationship would only help finding the living
resource (similar to rel=current in the Atom Relationship Registry)
if you're not already on it (in
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Simon Pieters wrote:
The syntax section says:
A thead element's end tag may be omitted if the thead
element is immediately followed by a tbody or tr element.
Tables created by the HTML parser in conforming HTML5 will always have a
tbody element.
Oops, that
- Original Message -
From: David Håsäther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Andrew Fedoniouk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: WHAT Working Group Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] HTML syntax: shortcuts for 'id' and 'class' attributes
| (Accidently
Trailing slashes in void elements are clearly unnecessary from a syntactic point
of view, but I think it can be argued that allowing them actually makes HTML
more internally consistent.
Current versions of HTML allow many unnecessary closing tags to be omitted
(e.g., /p), and for authors
Le 30 nov. 2006 à 16:46, Sam Ruby a écrit :
On 11/30/06, Michel Fortin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We can't really have a document that is both HTML5 and XHTML5 at the
same time if we keep the !DOCTYPE HTML declaration however.
Why not?
It seems I was mistaken about that. I was pretty sure
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Sam Ruby wrote:
In HTML5, there are a number of elements with a content model of empty: area,
base, br, col, command, embed, hr, img, link, meta, and param.
If HTML5 were changed so that these elements -- and these elements alone --
permitted an optional trailing
Mike Schinkel wrote:
1.) I read the FAQ http://blog.whatwg.org/faq/ and it seemed to imply that
HTML 5 and XHTML where not at odds with each other? Did I misread that,
because from comments on this thread I get the impression that might not be
the case.
2.) A similar question, but is the
- Original Message -
From: Boris Zbarsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Andrew Fedoniouk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] HTML syntax: shortcuts for 'id' and 'class' attributes
[off list, since it's totally the wrong list]
Oops, didn't
- Original Message -
From: J. King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Andrew Fedoniouk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: www-html [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] HTML syntax: shortcuts for 'id' and 'class' attributes
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:46:13 -0500, Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Boris Zbarsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Andrew Fedoniouk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] HTML syntax: shortcuts for 'id' and 'class' attributes
Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
So if HTML5
Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
Boris, what about this then:
p .myclass ... /p
p #myid ... /p
It's better, but nevertheless seems pretty pointless. And would cause HTML5 UAs
to behave differently from HTML4 UAs on HTML4 content, which is also undesirable.
-Boris
Hi Hixie,
As requested on IRC, here's the revised proposal for rewording the
start tag syntax. Only steps 3 and 4 have need to be changed from the
current spec.
3. The start tag may have a number of attributes, the syntax for which
is described below. Attribute names must be separated
39 matches
Mail list logo
