On Aug 13, 2012 4:49 AM, "Florian Bösch" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
>>
>> There is no conceivable conformance checker that's going to allow the use
>> of completely arbitrary tag names. It doesn't matter what formalism it
uses.
>> To allow custom tag name
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Chaals McCathieNevile wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:47:22 +0200, Florian Bösch
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
>>
>> There is no conceivable conformance checker that's going to allow the
>>> use of completely arbitrary
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:47:22 +0200, Florian Bösch wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
There is no conceivable conformance checker that's going to allow the
use of completely arbitrary tag names. It doesn't matter what formalism
it uses.
To allow custom tag name
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
> There is no conceivable conformance checker that's going to allow the use
> of completely arbitrary tag names. It doesn't matter what formalism it
> uses.
> To allow custom tag names and still be able to check the conformance of
> normal
Florian Bösch , 2012-08-12 12:36 +0200:
> It's my understanding that if you want to define a strict parser using a
> DTD that describes the markup, it's impossible to introduce arbitrary tage
> names (as in there are not tag wildcards in a DTD). A document that used
> arbitrary tags could not be v
"Tab Atkins Jr." , 2012-08-12 15:43 -0700:
> What Dimitri said, but to address your comment directly, DTD-based
> validation is long-dead, at least when applied to HTML. A DTD can't
> capture the validity requirements that the HTML spec already imposes,
> so it's irrelevant if it also can't valid
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Florian Bösch wrote:
> It's my understanding that if you want to define a strict parser using a DTD
> that describes the markup, it's impossible to introduce arbitrary tage names
> (as in there are not tag wildcards in a DTD). A document that used arbitrary
> tags
On Aug 12, 2012 11:08 AM, "Dimitri Glazkov" wrote:
>
> Hi Dave!
>
> There's been a long, challenging, and yet inconclusive discussion
> around this. Start with these threads:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/1156.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-we
Hi Dave!
There's been a long, challenging, and yet inconclusive discussion
around this. Start with these threads:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/1156.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012AprJun/0419.html
:DG<
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 11:05 P
It's my understanding that if you want to define a strict parser using a
DTD that describes the markup, it's impossible to introduce arbitrary tage
names (as in there are not tag wildcards in a DTD). A document that used
arbitrary tags could not be validated.
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Dave
Markup could be much cleaner if custom elements use the element name,
rather than the is attribute. instead of
11 matches
Mail list logo
