On Mar 10, 2006, at 00:08, Ian Hickson wrote:
Here are some of the things I'm worried about:
* It should be possible for scripts to add content to placeholder
elements without those placeholder elements being non-conformant.
This is a very useful programming idiom, not least of which because
adding content to an existing element (whether attributes or child
nodes) is a lot easier than adding the element in the first place.
Well, it depends. Either the script writer has to locate each
placeholder or alternatively (s)he only needs to locate a parent to
which append (e.g. head).
Anyway, adding the base URL via a script seems like a bad idea that
does not deserve to be optimized for, and the meta element is usually
meant for data mining tools that do not execute scripts. I see the
point with the link element, although a link without a rel and a href
still intuitively feels wrong.
* It should be possible to have a group of pages that have a similar
structure, with elements annotated as necessary. For example, a
menu
list could be the same on each page, but with the currently loaded
page simply not having the "href" attribute on its link, or some
such.
Well, I suppose an <a> without a href could make sense for styling in
such a case. Still seems wrong somehow.
* It should always be clear from a semantic point of view whether the
content is a single "paragraph", or whether it is a group of
paragraphs.
Yes, changing flow to exclusive or of block and inline seems reasonable.
href and rel on link
href on base
name and content on meta (other than the encoding decl)
src on img
code, height and width on applet
name and value on param
I've made a note of this in the draft so I don't lose track of it.
Your
proposals make sense on the whole.
Nice. :-)
Exceptions: <base target> may mean that
<base> should have either href or target.
The current draft does not even have target. How would the target map
to XHTML where the base element is not allowed?
I suggest that the
alt attribute on img be made optional.
I agree.
Cool.
You can have empty sections. They might not be written yet, for
instance.
OK.
I agree. I think I'll remove mention of the "significant inline
content"
concept.
Seems practical.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
