[whatwg] Images whose contents are not known In such cases, the alt attribute's value may be omitted...

I object. -- The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'. - Larry Hardiman http://www.ChaosReigns.com Guns save lives.

[whatwg] Content model vs. Contexts in which this element may be used

These sections have very different wordings given the fact that they directly correspond to each other. Maybe change Contexts in which this element may be used to Content models in which this element may be used. -- Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you

Re: [whatwg] Idea: Links w/o end anchors (is possible)

On 07/22, ppj wrote: e.g. a href='...' search='...'link text/a I've wished for this a number of times, but I think I would be more interested in the spec saying that a document should include id tags at every point someone might want to link to which the author of the document is willing to

[whatwg] Encoding declaration state I hate the wording.

This took me a while to figure out. Please change: 4.2.5 The meta element Metadata content. Contexts in which this element may be used: If the charset attribute is present, or if the element is in the Encoding declaration state: in a head element. If the http-equiv attribute

Re: [whatwg] Encoding declaration state I hate the wording.

Maybe it would be better to just add A meta element is in an Encoding declaration state when its http-equiv attribute is present with a value of content-type. To the top of the definition of Encoding declaration state:

[whatwg] Create my own DTD and specify in DOCTYPE? Re: Validation

Am I correct in concluding that my best option is to create my own HTML5 DTD, and use a DOCTYPE along the lines of: !DOCTYPE html SYSTEM http://www.chaosreigns.com/DTD/html5.dtd; ? Can the HTML5 spec be modified slightly to say that this sort of thing complies? (

Re: [whatwg] Create my own DTD and specify in DOCTYPE? Re: Validation

On 07/21, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: HTML5 is not an SGML or XML language. It does not use a DOCTYPE in I thought HTML5 conformed to XML? any way. The !DOCTYPE HTML incantation required at the top of HTML5 pages serves the sole purpose of tricking older browsers into rendering the document as

[whatwg] Validation

Why is it okay for a document to not specify its HTML version? Do all browsers ignore it? How should a validator handle lack of HTML version info when the next standard is released with no DOCTYPE? Should validators ignore older HTML version numbers which are listed in DOCTYPES? Why aren't

Re: [whatwg] Validation

On 07/20, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote: How should a validator handle lack of HTML version info when the next standard is released with no DOCTYPE? I assume the validator will probably check for a current version of HTML. Most of the older versions of HTML are subsets of current versions.

Re: [whatwg] Validation

On 07/20, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote: Uh-okay. What could various means be ? Something like: object src=image.svg img src=image.png /object Why not use a HTML7 and a HTML9 validator in this case ? The HTML 7 validator could check all pages and report those that aren't valid HTML 7. Those

Re: [whatwg] Validation

On 07/20, Eduard Pascual wrote: feed/send/pipe/whatever all pages to the HTML7 validator: since HTML9 would be a superset of 7 You didn't mean that, did you? Oh, HTML9 would specify a superset of what browsers are required to handle gracefully, not actually including everything from 7 in 9.