Re: [whatwg] must only ambiguity

2008-05-09 Thread Ian Hickson
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Philip Taylor wrote: More generally, all uses of must only and may only etc seem dangerous. The spec says The key words [...] in the normative parts of this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119, but instead they have to be interpreted as described by

Re: [whatwg] must only ambiguity

2007-12-27 Thread Krzysztof Żelechowski
Dnia 24-12-2007, Pn o godzinie 16:36 -0500, L. David Baron pisze: On Monday 2007-12-24 19:07 +0100, Krzysztof Żelechowski wrote: My rewording for competition: Authors may use elements in the HTML namespace in the contexts where they are explicitly allowed and nowhere else. My

Re: [whatwg] must only ambiguity

2007-12-24 Thread Krzysztof Żelechowski
Dnia 21-12-2007, Pt o godzinie 17:28 +, Philip Taylor pisze: Documents and document fragments / Structure says Authors must only use elements in the HTML namespace in the contexts where they are allowed, as defined for each element. That phrase is unclear. It could be interpreted as:

Re: [whatwg] must only ambiguity

2007-12-24 Thread L. David Baron
On Monday 2007-12-24 19:07 +0100, Krzysztof Żelechowski wrote: My rewording for competition: Authors may use elements in the HTML namespace in the contexts where they are explicitly allowed and nowhere else. My rewording for competition: Authors may put elements inside an element only if

[whatwg] must only ambiguity

2007-12-21 Thread Philip Taylor
Documents and document fragments / Structure says Authors must only use elements in the HTML namespace in the contexts where they are allowed, as defined for each element. That phrase is unclear. It could be interpreted as: Authors must { only use elements in the HTML namespace } in { the