17153 2012-05-23 00:58:01 +0000 Nu validator wrongly stamps <command> in the <head> as invalid 2013-04-22 00:09:24 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML Checker General unspecified PC All CLOSED WORKSFORME http://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=data%3Atext%2Fhtml%3Bcharset%3Dutf-8%3Bbase64%2CPCFET0NUWVBFIGh0bWw%252BDQo8aGVhZD4NCg0KICAgICAgICAgICA8Y29tbWFuZCBkaXNhYmxlZD4NCg0KPHRpdGxlPjwvdGl0bGU%252BPC9oZWFkPjxwPg%253D%253D&showsource=yes P2 normal --- 1 xn--mlform-iua mike+validator mike xn--mlform-iua www-validator-cvs oldest_to_newest 68027 0 xn--mlform-iua 2012-05-23 00:58:01 +0000 Spec says that the "Metadata content" category is one of 3 categories for the <command> element and that <command> is allowed "Where metadata content is expected." And HTML5 clearly lists <command> together wtih the <meta> element etc: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/content-models.html#metadata-content Further more IE10, Firefox 12, Opera 12 and Safari 5.1.7 all places the <command> in the <head> However, the validator stamps <command> in the head as a bug. 68250 1 mike 2012-05-29 10:57:03 +0000 Since <command> isn't actually supported by any browsers yet, it's not a big priority to have the validator properly support it. I don't understand what the current use case would be for anybody actually including it in a real-world Web document at this point. Given the fact that it's been in spec for 7 years or more now and nobody's actually implemented it, it seems possible that that could end up just being dropped from the spec entirely. 68275 2 xn--mlform-iua 2012-05-29 17:16:14 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) If you think the HTML5 spec needs to be updated, then isn't the propert thing to file a bug? ** Note that I did not say that you should remove the validator's current warning against using <command>. I just said that the validator should reflect the fact <command> is permitted in <head>. ** I would further more argue that, after 7 years - 5 of them within W3C - browsers are picking up. OK, I don't know how deep their support of <command> is - but: * they can't see it as a unknown element, when they (as I said above) keep it in the <head> if you place it there. Which is a form of support. Because, if they had seen it as an unknown element, then they would have spit it out of <head> and placed in the body element. * Note in this regard that IE8 too would keep it the head, becaue IE historically allowed new elements in the <head>. But note that IE9 did not keep it in the <head> - probably because it did not get its HTML5 implementation correct. Whereas IE10 *does* keep <command> in the head - but spits any other unknown element out of <head>. * Thus, what the WHATwg spec says about implementation of <command>, is not entirely correct: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/interactive-elements.html#the-command-element * Meanwhile, the last changes to the command element was, according to HTML4-differences, the 25 May 2011 working draft, so it I don't know how old one actually claim <command> to be: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#changes-2011-05-25 68276 3 xn--mlform-iua 2012-05-29 17:20:17 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > * Thus, what the WHATwg spec says about implementation of <command>, is not > entirely correct: > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/interactive-elements.html#the-command-element Sorry, if unclear: I meant that its implementation status note is not updated since 2009. 86438 4 mike 2013-04-21 02:01:35 +0000 The command element has been dropped from the spec.