Hi Daniel. You've obviously had these issues on your mind a long time.What is the benefit of the @start attribute on the ending tag? Shouldn't the @end attribute be sufficient. I fear that if you let HTML authors loose with something like this they'll end up with mis- matching pairs, and while still able to create those (e.g. two start tags ending at the same ID; or pointing to non-extant IDs) the surface area for error is greater if the end tag has to be the inverse of the start tag too.
— Nicholas Shanks. On 2 Apr 2008, at 4:05 pm, Daniel Glazman wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:I like the paired-elements proposal, much better than my earlier ideas of being able to wrap <li></li> in idm. It gives you all the power of idm while retaining a well-formed dom tree. However, it's not ideal. The stuff in the range is no longer targetable with CSS, frex. We could poke at CSS3 to have a new pseudo-element set for idm, but meh. How do implementors feel about this?http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Nov/0190.html </Daniel>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
