Henri Sivonen wrote:
What about the interaction of <section> with <head> and <body>?
How would you insert the optional tags in this case:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<title>...</title>
<section>...</section>
<div>...</div>
?
My tentative assumption has been
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html><head><title>...</title>
</head><body><section>...</section>
<div>...</div></body></html>
That is how I would recommend it be defined. It's not what Firefox does
(that's the easiest browser to get the DOM source from), but I don't
think the defined behaviour should be affected by the results of current
browsers, in this case.
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html><head><title>...</title>
<section>...</section>
</head><body><div>...</div></body></html>
Firefox doesn't even get that, it does this:
(I've replaced "..." with "section" and "div", respectively, and
formatted for easier reading)
<html>
<head>
<title>Testing</title>
<section></section>
</head>
<body>
section
<div>
div
</div>
</body>
</html>
In fact, even if you explicitly insert the <body> start tag, you get
some strange results from unknown elements like section. For example,
given this document:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<title>Testing</title>
<body>
<section>section
<em>emphasis</em>
<article>article</article>
<div>div</div>
</section>
Firefox closes the section element before any known block element, but
allows any text nodes, inline elements, and other unknown elements to be
nested.
<html>
<head>
<title>Testing</title>
</head>
<body>
<section>
section <em>emphasis</em>
<article>article</article>
</section>
<div>
div
</div>
</body>
</html>
This is why it should be defined that elements like <setion> should
imply <body>; however, for backwards compatibility, it should be
recommended that the start tags not be omitted in such cases. Even
then, it won't always work as intended. eg. you can't use these:
section div, section p, ... { /* ... */ }
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
