On 30/11/06, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Closing slash on void elements > sounds like a good example of "this is invalid because we're sticking > to our fixed ideas"[1] rather than "this is invalid for technical > reasons like causing ambiguities in DOM parsing". So I support Sam's > approach.
Well, nothing per the parsing section causes "ambiguities in DOM parsing" (assuming I understand what that means). So I'm not sure what you're suggesting.
It's the core of the debate, namely if <img /> isn't technically a problem why are validators required to flag it as invalid? The counter examples are comparisons with <div /> which isn't parsed into the DOM most would expect when sent as HTML, and corner cases like <base href=http://example.org/bar/> - now, how do you resolve relative URLs in this document? This is the sort of ambiguity the DOM parsing has to take into account - caused by the usage of forward closing slashes within tags. If the spec can specify simple non-ambiguous ways of parsing that like the author expects I think we can relax validation requirements like Sam wants.
> That said, HTML5 must see > > <input type="checkbox" checked/> > > as a checkbox input with a "checked" attribute. It does.
Included in the discussion to make sure HTML5 continues to do so even if the change I want (more liberal validation) is taken in. -- Hallvord R. M. Steen
