Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Apr 7, 2005, at 09:58, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
There's no reason why a full conformance checker couldn't be based on
OpenSP.
It would be prudent not to use OpenSP in order to avoid accidentally
allowing SGMLisms that are alien to real-world tag soup.
If I ever get around to
On Apr 8, 2005, at 03:21, Petrazickis wrote:
Wouldn't authors need to use an HTML4 or an XHTML doctype specifically
to trigger the standards mode in IE6?
No. The proposed doctype !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//WHATWG//NONSGML
HTML5//EN activates the standards mode in IE6.
On Apr 8, 2005, at 09:23, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
If I ever get around to writing any form of conformance checker, true
SGML validation (most likely using OpenSP) or XML validation (probably
using Xerces or other XML parser) is at the top of my list.
If I ever got around to it, DTD validation
On Apr 8, 2005 8:18 AM, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. The proposed doctype !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//WHATWG//NONSGML
HTML5//EN activates the standards mode in IE6.
The proposed string that MUST appear as the first line of a WHAT-WG
document is... please do not call it a doctype
Matthew Thomas wrote:
Lists should not be classified as block level or inline level
elements within the spec.
I think they should. (Note that block and inline are different here from
the definition CSS applies to them.) That way they get another content
model that might be more suited for inline
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Matthew Thomas wrote:
pIt makes sense to allow bulleted/numbered lists inside paragraphs, for two
reasons:ul
lisuch lists are already used in typography/li
[see below]
/ulBut as for inline lists, I think creating markup for them would be a
waste of time./p
Agreed.
Ian Hickson wrote:
(Note that HTML1 was not an SGML application; HTML2 was retrofitted into the
SGML world for theoretical reasons, but the real world never really caught
up with that theory.)
Yes, I'm aware of what HTML 1 was (Martin Bryan explains it well [1],
for anyone that doesn't know)
Ian Hickson wrote:
To get truly nested elements, only the XML parser would be an option.
The question is whether:
a) We don't allow any of this.
I don't think progress should be held up any more than it already is by
broken browsers, so let's not let a limitation with HTML affect an XHTML
Ian Hickson wrote:
...
lithey would have acceptable presentation in UAs that claim HTML4
support./li
Even in HTML5 UAs, in the HTML parser this:
pulli/li/ul/p
will become this:
p/pulli/li/ul
That's why I said acceptable, rather than perfect. (Others
misunderstood what I meant too,
Ian Hickson wrote:
At the end of the day this would just be saying in XML you can also do
this. Avoiding those options for people who serialise to both XML and
HTML is relatively easy, just like avoiding xml:base and MathML.
Detecting stuff in non-XHTML namespaces is significantly easier than
Hi,
I've just done some experements with the repetition templates, and
tried to devise a way to help IE end up with usable submit buttons,
rather than useless push buttons. The solution I came up with involves
a little (read: extremely evil and dirty) hack with IE's proprietary
conditional
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
At the end of the day this would just be saying in XML you can also
do this. Avoiding those options for people who serialise to both XML
and HTML is relatively easy, just like avoiding xml:base and MathML.
Detecting stuff in
On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, Matthew Thomas wrote:
That's why I said acceptable, rather than perfect. (Others
misunderstood what I meant too, so I should have used readable. Access
via the DOM is something I personally care less about.)
Access via the DOM also affects styling.
Also, if UAs have to
On Apr 8, 2005, at 17:11, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
At the end of the day this would just be saying in XML you can also
do this. Avoiding those options for people who serialise to both XML
and HTML is relatively easy, just like avoiding xml:base
Does any What WG document specify what optional tag inference features
a conformance checker for the text/html flavor is required to implement
and what elements are required to be considered empty?
Should What WG require tags that were optional in HTML 4 to be
mandatory?
--
Henri Sivonen
Hi,
The current draft states [1]:
| In HTML (as opposed to XHTML), the title element must not contain
| content other than text and entities; user agents must parse the
| element so that entities are recognised and processed, but all other
| markup is interpreted as literal text.
I think that
16 matches
Mail list logo
