[whatwg] <p> elements containing other block-level elements
lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au
Thu Apr 7 19:28:11 PDT 2005
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>The problem with allowing the HTML flavor and XHTML flavor diverge is
>>that one could no longer use HTML and XHTML serializations
>>interchangeably in apps that do not suffer from the HTML DOM legacy and
>>otherwise could treat the HTML-XHTML distinction as something you deal
>>with on the IO boundary.
>>I use Java XML tools for producing HTML. I use XHTML internally and
>>serialize as HTML. This works great with XHTML 1.0 and HTML 4.01. If the
>>HTML flavor of What WG HTML and the XHTML flavor diverge, I'd need to
>>spec that only an HTML-compatible subset of What WG XHTML that doesn't
>>nest elements in ways prohibited on the text/html side may be put into
>>an app that outputs text/html.
I don't think it's necessary to make HTML and XHTML diverge with
relation to the element content models. I think the spec should just
provide notes about backwards compatibility for older UAs that won't
support such constructs properly; however, they will degrade gracefully.
New UAs could be updated to handle <p><ol>...</ol></p> correctly (when
an HTML5 doctype is used) as text/html. So, this would produce the
following DOM for a current UA:
* (any parent element)
But for a new UA, it would produce (just like an XHTML UA will)
However, I realise that may cause issues with supporting existing HTML4
documents, as it would require further DOCTYPE sniffing (or a proper
SGML implementation that reads the DOCTYPE) to produce the correct DOMs
in each case, but it might be a solution worth considering.
> One possible hack is to say that when you serialise this kind of stuff to
> HTML, you have to wrap the problematic elements in <object> tags, so that
> for example this XML:
Isn't that just abuse of somewhat semantic element (representing
external content that should be embedded within the document), for a
completely non-semantic hack? If it were this, it would be more acceptable
<object type="image/png" data="list.png"><ol>...</ol></object>
> On the other hand, there already are other big differences between HTML5
> and XHTML5 (or whatever we end up calling them).
Calling it XHTML5 would be very confusing, as people won't understand
that this version is on a track and for a purpose that is different from
XHTML2. I'd call it something like (X)HTML Applications 1.0 (maybe it
could be shortened to XHTML Apps and HTML Apps 1, or (even shorter)
HAppy 1.0). That name would, of course, include web-apps, web-forms and
> For instance, in the XHTML variant you can use embedded MathML.
> Is this just a case like that?
I don't think so. MathML can't be used in HTML because there are no
namespaces. Whereas, the only reason <p><ol/></p> can't be used in HTML
is for bugwards compatibility.
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
More information about the whatwg