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 without a 'name', or a
> without a 'href': these, per spec, represent nothing. Th
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 useful
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Christoph Päper wrote:
Your todo list:
...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 it
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Christoph Päper wrote:
>
> >Your todo list:
> >
> >
> >
> > ...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
Ian Hickson:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Christoph Päper wrote:
This list item will be replaced by a script.
is not invalid.
It's also wrong, since that isn't really a list item.
I couldn't think of a concrete example, where I could have filled in
something more appropriate.
Your todo list
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Christoph Päper wrote:
>
> Ian Hickson:
> > The difficulty is in walking the fine line between useful and
> > over-constrained. For example, the fact that is invalid in HTML4
> > is a real problem.
>
> Well,
>
> This list item will be replaced by a script.
>
> is not inva
Ian Hickson:
The difficulty is in walking the fine line between useful and
over-constrained. For example, the fact that is invalid in HTML4
is a real problem.
Well,
This list item will be replaced by a script.
is not invalid. An empty list doesn't make any sense otherwise, IMHO, so
it's
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Olav Junker Kjær wrote:
>
> I think I know what you are getting at: You want to eradicate invalid
> HTML on the web, by declaring everything to be valid!
Hehe.
> But the notion of conformance is still quite useful to authors and
> authoring tools. E.g. if a META-element wi
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
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote:
>
> Unless you are going to provide a method that automatically adds all the
> orphaned node's required attributes and children upon creation, you
> cannot avoid an intermediate state in which the node does not fulfill
> its conformance requirements.
The id
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote:
I don't understand the point in making this code:
// this element will be used later
var meta = document.createElement('meta');
...non-conformant.
Hmm. I think you need to think a bit on the conformance requirements you
want to ha
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote:
>
> Please tell me you don't expect conformance checkers to check for
> potentially invalid JavaScript output...
Obviously not, as that is mathematically impossible.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand the point in making this code:
> >
> >// this element will be used later
> >var meta = document.createElement('meta');
> >
> > ...non-conformant.
>
> Hmm. I think you need to think a bit on the conformance requirements you
Ian Hickson wrote:
I don't see why you can't validate an orphan fragment. Clearly the spec
needs to be clarified a bit, but it doesn't seem impossible.
Please tell me you don't expect conformance checkers to check
for potentially invalid JavaScript output...
~fantasai
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 . It does not
require 'name' probably only because the DTD can't express a
requirement of "either 'name' or 'http-equiv'": as WA1 no
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Sjoerd Visscher wrote:
> >
> > I don't see why you can't validate an orphan fragment. Clearly the
> > spec needs to be clarified a bit, but it doesn't seem impossible.
I should have said, I don't see why you can't "check an orphan fragment
for conformance", my bad.
> You
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 b
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
>> 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 be used later
>var meta = document.createElement('
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote:
> >
> > > HTML 4 #REQUIREs the 'content' attribute for . It does not
> > > require 'name' probably only because the DTD can't express a
> > > requirement of "either 'name' or 'http-equiv'": as WA1
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote:
HTML 4 #REQUIREs the 'content' attribute for . 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 element without
a 'name' attribute isn't defining an
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, fantasai wrote:
>
> HTML 4 #REQUIREs the 'content' attribute for . 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 element without
> a 'name' attribute isn't defining any meta data.
HTML 4 #REQUIREs the 'content' attribute for . 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
element without a 'name' attribute isn't defining any
meta data. Is there a reason why these attributes are nonet
23 matches
Mail list logo
