[whatwg] Content Model Restrictions on table>tr in HTML
ian at hixie.ch
Mon Dec 4 23:32:26 PST 2006
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Ian Hickson wrote:
>> No, it doesn't. It doesn't define the syntax at all. It defines how to
>> parse the syntax, and what to report as a syntax error, but that
>> section has no normative criteria that apply to documents.
> That is quite irrelevant.
I respectively disagree.
> The definition of the parsing algorithm along with the
> syntax-independent requirements severely limits what these criteria
> could be; such criteria could only define that some documents are
> non-conforming even though they parse into conforming trees without
> generating parse errors; doing anything beyond that would contradict the
> rest of the draft.
I agree that the requirements could be deduced. But unless they are
actually there, they aren't actually there. If you see what I mean.
> It is actually possible to construct a document that parses into a
> conforming tree without generating parse errors that does not con- form
> to the requirements in section 9.1, odd as that may seem.
Could you elaborate on this? I don't doubt that there are mistakes, but I
am not aware of any.
>> Such a document is impossible to construct declaratively with the HTML
>> format, it can only be declaratively constructed with the XML syntax.
> My point exactly.
What is your point? I'm confused. The syntax section is clear that you
can't create such a document. This is, in fact, one very important example
of why the syntax section is important -- if an authoring tool tried to
generate a document that had a <pre> inside a <p>, it would be
non-conforming, but only because of the syntax section (18.104.22.168:2), not
because of the parser section -- the parser section wouldn't be able to
determine there was an error.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg