This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Section 1.9 Conformance requirements for authors explains the reason for many conformance requirements. Here are a few content model errors found on real sites that I am not sure are adequately explained: * <div> as a child of <h2> or <h3> (in general the fact that headers allow only phrasing content, not flow content) * <div> as a child of <span> - this seems fairly common, perhaps because it was allowed by HTML4; since <div> has no semantics, it's not obviously a semantic error * Nested interactive elements (<a> inside <a>, <button> inside <a>, etc) * <form> in <span> * <dl> and <ul> only being allowed to contain their specific children.
(In reply to comment #0) > * <div> as a child of <span> - this seems fairly common, perhaps because it was > allowed by HTML4; since <div> has no semantics, it's not obviously a semantic > error I was mistaken - HTML4 does not allow it. It would still be helpful to ensure that the reason for this restriction is sufficiently explained.
> * <div> as a child of <h2> or <h3> (in general the fact that headers allow only > phrasing content, not flow content) "Errors that flag content with dubious semantics" > * <div> as a child of <span> Added "Errors that catch cases where the default styles are likely to lead to confusion". > * Nested interactive elements (<a> inside <a>, <button> inside <a>, etc) Covered by the new "Errors that catch cases where the default styles are likely to lead to confusion". > * <form> in <span> Added "Errors that avoid peculiarities of the parser". > * <dl> and <ul> only being allowed to contain their specific children. "Errors that indicate a conflict in expressed semantics". EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Accepted Change Description: see diff given below - added examples and the aforementioned new sections Rationale: Concurred with reporter's comments.
Checked in as WHATWG revision r4966. Check-in comment: More information on the reasons for authoring conformance criteria. I can't wait to see other W3C and IETF specs, like SVG, Atom, or RDFa, include introduction sections explaining why _they_ all have authoring conformance criteria. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=4965&to=4966
Looks good to me.