[whatwg] WA1: xml:base

The xml:base attribute, unlike the xml:lang attribute, is not listed as a common attribute. It's also not listed as an element-specific attribute on any element. However, the prose says to use xml:base instead of in XML documents. Could you specify more clearly where the xml:base attribute is all

[whatwg] [WA1] Replace with

Hi, I think should be replaced by because already works as a marker or a highlighter, even without CSS, and is impossible to style in IE6 without hacks. I couldn't find any suitable synonyms to "marked" or "highlighted" that starts with "b", but I don't think that should be reason enough

Re: [whatwg] WA1: rev attribute

fantasai wrote: > Matthew Raymond wrote: >> fantasai wrote: >>>Most common link types >>>out there are used with 'rel', but some 'rev' values can also be >>>useful. Here are some use cases: >>> - rev="footnote" for a link back from the footnote or endnote to >>>the source anchor in the main te

[whatwg] text/html conformance checkers and CDATA

Should text/html conformance checkers treat the string 'of

[whatwg] text/html conformance checkers and comments

What kinds of comments should a text/html HTML5 conformance checker allow? -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

[whatwg] text/html conformance checkers and PIs

What should text/html HTML5 conformance checkers do about PIs? -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

[whatwg] Forbidden characters in text/html

Which characters should a text/html HTML5 conformance checker consider forbidden? The same characters that are forbidden in XML 1.0 (\0, FF, etc.)? Or some other set? -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Re: [whatwg] WA1: content models of i and dfn

fantasai wrote: excludes . Would it make sense for it to also exclude ? And should exclude and/or , too? And shouldn't they both require significant inline content? Responding to myself.. I think excluding would make sense, but not the other way around, and should not exclude , but both s

[whatwg] Basic assumption about text/html parsing

Is it the intent of WHAT WG to specify text/html parsing in such a way that for each WHAT WG-conforming text/html document there exists (in the mathematical sense) exactly one equivalent canonicalized (in the XML c14n sense) XHTML document? I think it would be desirable to specify text/html pa

[whatwg] WA1: content models of i and dfn

excludes . Would it make sense for it to also exclude ? And should exclude and/or , too? And shouldn't they both require significant inline content? ~fantasai