This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Some elements, such as AREA[1] are described as having an 'empty' content model. However, the section (3.2.4.1) which discusses the types of content models does not include 'empty' as one of the types. In fact, AREA is described under 'Flow' content, as are other elements which are void. It would be good if, under 3.2.4.1, there was a description of what the 'empty' content model is and what, if any, relationship this has with being a void element. 1 - http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#the-area-element
(In reply to Karl Groves from comment #0) > Some elements, such as AREA[1] are described as having an 'empty' content > model. However, the section (3.2.4.1) which discusses the types of content > models does not include 'empty' as one of the types. In fact, AREA is > described under 'Flow' content, as are other elements which are void. > > It would be good if, under 3.2.4.1, there was a description of what the > 'empty' content model is and what, if any, relationship this has with being > a void element. > > > > 1 - http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#the-area-element right, I don't understand why all content models are not listed in one place will look into it
(In reply to Karl Groves from comment #0) > Some elements, such as AREA[1] are described as having an 'empty' content > model. However, the section (3.2.4.1) which discusses the types of content > models does not include 'empty' as one of the types. In fact, AREA is > described under 'Flow' content, as are other elements which are void. That's because the area element is itself flow content, right? Which is completely different from what its own individual content model is. In other words, section 3.2.4.1 doesn't categorize elements according to what their own individual content models are; instead it categorizes them according to what kind of content the elements themselves are. So we can't add a subsection to 3.2.4.1 that categorizes elements that are empty content. It wouldn't make sense because no element is empty content. The only thing that's empty content is "nothing". In fact the definition of 'empty' as a category of content is pretty much "the category that includes nothing" or "that includes no content" (no elements, no text).
That's fine. My point is that the same explanation you just gave should be provided in 3.2.4.1 so that a reader doesn't go there looking for an explanation of what the 'Empty' Content Model is and find it missing.
(In reply to Karl Groves from comment #3) > That's fine. My point is that the same explanation you just gave should be > provided in 3.2.4.1 so that a reader doesn't go there looking for an > explanation of what the 'Empty' Content Model is and find it missing. would 'None' be any clearer: as the definition of 'content model' says "Content model A normative description of what content must be included as children and descendants of the element." http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#element-dfn-content-model What must be included as children is nothing in the case of void elements right?
I think Empty is fine, and probably more accurate. Empty should be understood as being a node which has no other element nodes or text nodes. All I'm suggesting is that this simple clarification be placed in 3.2.4.1
HTML5.1 Bugzilla Bug Triage: fixed, nothing content model is now defined. Empty content model has been change to nothing content model. If this resolution is not satisfactory, please copy the relevant bug details/proposal into a new issue at the W3C HTML5 Issue tracker: https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/new where it will be re-triaged. Thanks!