I was wondering if HTML5 (WA1, at the moment) is going to define which
tags are optional and which elements are implied. (This is of course
only for text/html documents.)
For example, what is the resulting DOM of this document:
titleFoo/title
script type=text/javascript src=bar/script
... and
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
No, there is no implied body element in either of those fragments.
I appreciate your comments but I was wondering if you have taken into
account what existing user agents do. Since that, not some
out-of-date-not-followed SGML standard, should be standardized in my
humble
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Matthew Raymond wrote:
That said, this is how I would process the sample markup:
body
p.../p unnamed section
h1A/h1 1A (importance level 1)
I agree with most of what you said but the problem I have with
To summarise my position: icomplex solves some problems, and introduces
others. Just like input, it is not perfect. Since I do not consider the
problems that it solves to be serious problems, and since I do not
consider the problems it introduces to be any less important than the ones
it sets
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
script type=text/javascript src=bar/script
titleFoo/title
..?
If I am not mistaken:
htmlheadscript.../
title...//headbody/body/html
I believe you are mistaken. A conforming SGML parser will not imply the
body element without
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
script type=text/javascript src=bar/script
titleFoo/title
..?
If I am not mistaken:
htmlheadscript.../
title...//headbody/body/html
I believe you are mistaken. A conforming SGML parser will not imply the
body element
Title: Message
I just came across your work
today - and I applaud your efforts!!!
I especially liked how you want
to expand browsers fully into web applications from the original "document"
oriented spec. I am sure that concept takes some heat from the
"purists"...
I gave the specs a
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
The head element seems to be implied by Mozilla and IE.
Even when there are no elements that imply a head? I meant, e.g.,
when parsing the empty string as HTML. My understanding was that no
head element was generated in
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Csaba Gabor wrote:
2. Repetition model.
The Draft has a huge amount of space devoted to this,
but I haven't been able to think of a single compelling
argument for it. Most of the control enhancements such
as validation are conveniences, after all, but what
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Dean Edwards wrote:
Yeah, several people have said that. We're thinking about removing it.
On the other hand, several people have said that it is a godsend and
that they are so happy it is there because they are fed up of rolling
their own. At the moment it's
On Apr 5, 2005 6:50 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Joe Gregorio wrote:
In the Web Forms 2.0 Working Draft dated 16 March 2005
5.6. Submitting the encoded form data set
If the specified method is not one of get, post,
put, or delete then it
11 matches
Mail list logo
