[whatwg] Suggestions and questions for Web Forms 2.0, 2004-12-26
jg307 at cam.ac.uk
Mon Jan 10 02:37:26 PST 2005
Matthew Thomas wrote:
>>>> The children of a form element must be block-level elements,
>>>> unless one of the ancestors of the form element is a td, th, li,
>>>> dd, or block-level element other than div, in which case either
>>>> block-level or inline-level content is allowed (but not both).
>>> 10. Why the exception of <div>?
>> The idea here is to allow certain cases that were disallowed in HTML4,
>> despite being semantically adequate. The <div> element, however,
>> doesn't add any semantics, and so doesn't make the case semantically
> Semantically adequate for what? This will cause people to use
> semantic elements inappropriately (most likely, use <p></p> for
> something that isn't a paragraph), weakening the overall
> meaningfulness of the elements (for example, making a word
> processor's paragraph count return incorrect results). As Jim Ley
> said earlier
> January/002798.html>, HTML elements cover Web-document semantics
> rather than application semantics, so the probability of HTML
> containing a non-<div> element appropriate for the meaning of any
> given form is near zero.
+1 We shouldn't introduce artifical restrictions that can't possibly be
enforced and will quickly lead to reality going out of sync with the
spec. Plus <div> is, as Matthew says, going to be needed in any language
sufficiently simple as to be used correctly by most well-meaning authors.
More information about the whatwg