Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Christoph Päper wrote:
h2Your todo list:/h2
ol
/ol
...makes sense to me.
Traditionally empty items have been filled with N/A, ./., -,
(empty), none etc. or in this case maybe nothing to do. It's not
like HTML was the first system to reuire
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Olav Junker Kjær wrote:
But the notion of conformance is still quite useful to authors and
authoring tools. E.g. if a META-element without any attributes appears
in a document, its clearly due to an oversight or a bug in some tool, so
it would be
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote:
One way of drawing the line might be, does dropping this requirement
result in a semantically-meaningful representation? An empty list
represents an empty list. But a meta without a 'name', or a link
without a 'href': these, per spec, represent
Ian Hickson wrote:
You may notice that very few elements and attributes in HTML5 at the
moment are required. This is not entirely coincidental.
I think I know what you are getting at: You want to eradicate invalid
HTML on the web, by declaring everything to be valid!
From the perspective of
Ian Hickson:
The difficulty is in walking the fine line between useful and
over-constrained. For example, the fact that ol/ol is invalid in HTML4
is a real problem.
Well,
olliThis list item will be replaced by a script./ol
is not invalid. An empty list doesn't make any sense otherwise,
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote:
HTML 4 #REQUIREs the 'content' attribute for meta. It does not require
'name' probably only because the DTD can't express a requirement of
either 'name' or 'http-equiv': as WA1 notes, a meta element without
a 'name' attribute isn't defining any meta
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote:
HTML 4 #REQUIREs the 'content' attribute for meta. It does not require
'name' probably only because the DTD can't express a requirement of
either 'name' or 'http-equiv': as WA1 notes, a meta element without
a 'name' attribute isn't
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote:
HTML 4 #REQUIREs the 'content' attribute for meta. It does not
require 'name' probably only because the DTD can't express a
requirement of either 'name' or 'http-equiv': as WA1 notes, a
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would mean that leaving the attribute out violates a conformance
requirement, making the document non-conformant.
...the advantage of which being...?
I don't understand the point in making this code:
// this element will
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote:
HTML 4 #REQUIREs the 'content' attribute for meta. It does not
require 'name' probably only because the DTD can't express a
requirement of either 'name' or 'http-equiv': as WA1
10 matches
Mail list logo
