[whatwg] Content Model Restrictions on table>tr in HTML

[Ian Hickson]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>
> * Ian Hickson wrote:
> >> You should request removal of the section. It is just a non-normative
> >> discussion of implications of the parsing algorithm despite the claim
> >> that "extra restrictions" are being defined and the misuse of RFC2119
> >> keywords. As the thread shows, such discussion is unlikely to be com-
> >> plete, but likely to mislead and confuse. 
> >
> >Actually, it's the only place that defines what the syntax is. It's
> >rather important! The parser section defines how to parse and report
> >errors, but it doesn't give conformance criteria for documents and
> >authoring tools.
> 
> That may be so. I am saying is it is a very bad idea to organize the
> specification this way.

How do you propose to organise it instead? The XML, HTML, and CSS 
specifications quite clearly show that organising it so that the syntax 
and the parsing rules are defined in the same prose leads to serious 
deficiences (HTML forgot to define parsing altogether, CSS failed to 
give a number of error handling rules, and XML doesn't define how you 
get a tree from the markup).

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'