[whatwg] Empty elements
web at timaltman.com
Thu Feb 16 01:57:05 PST 2006
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:49:15 +0100, Lachlan Hunt
<lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au> wrote:
> Tim Altman wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:48:57 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Tim Altman wrote:
>>>> May OBJECT and CANVAS be treated as empty elements, i.e. <canvas />
>>>> <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?
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
126.96.36.199.7) 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
More information about the whatwg