On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:00 PM, James Graham <jgra...@opera.com> wrote: > I agree with Henri that it is > extremely worrying to allow aesthetic concerns to trump backward > compatibility here.
Letting aesthetic concerns trump backward compat is indeed troubling. It's also troubling that this even needs to be debated, considering that we're supposed to have a common understanding of the design principles and the design principles pretty clearly uphold backward compatibility over aesthetics. > I would also advise strongly against using position in DOM to detect intents > support; if you insist on adding a new void element I will strongly > recommend that we add it to the parser asap to try and mitigate the above > breakage, irrespective of whether our plans for the rest of the intent > mechanism. I think the compat story for new void elements is so bad that we shouldn't add new void elements. (<source> gets away with being a void element, because the damage is limited by the </video> or </audio> end tag that comes soon enough after <source>.) I think we also shouldn't add new elements that don't imply <body> when appearing in "in head". It's great that browsers have converged on the parsing algorithm. Let's not break what we've achieved to cater to aesthetics. -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/