On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:49:15 +0100, Lachlan Hunt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tim Altman wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:48:57 +0100, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Tim Altman wrote:
May OBJECT and CANVAS be treated as empty elements, i.e. <canvas />
and
<object /> if there is no fallback content?
[...]
If you mean "Can the string '<object/>' be treated as an empty element
tag", the answer is no.
You seem to have answered my question here. Why not?
Because it is XML syntax, not HTML syntax.
According SGML rules, <foo/> has a different meaning from the same
syntax in XML. According to the new HTML5 parsing rules (due to
complete lack of support for SGML), the '/' is an easy parse error and
is essentially ignored. Backwards compatibility reasons prevent the XML
meaning from being retrofitted into HTML.
OK. Assuming the HTML5 document is served with a text/html doctype, how
would the following markup be parsed?
<table>
<tr>
<td>
<canvas/>
<p>Foo</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
If the '/' is an easy parse error, the p element becomes part of the
fallback content for the canvas element. But what about the end tags for
td, tr, and table?
I skimmed the parsing section of the current HTML5 draft (mainly
8.2.2.3.7) and noticed that the canvas element is being treated as a
"phrasing" element. Is this by mistake? I would think it would be
treated similar to the object element, since they have similar handling of
fallback content.
--
Tim Altman
