25144 2014-03-25 11:00:52 +0000 While reading the spec for the embed element at <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-preview/the-embed-element.html> I stumbled about this sentence: When the element is created with neither a src attribut [...] 2014-05-03 00:27:20 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified Other other RESOLVED FIXED http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#top P3 normal Unsorted 1 contributor ian ian mike robert.buchholz spamfaenger contributor oldest_to_newest 102872 0 contributor 2014-03-25 11:00:52 +0000 Specification: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-preview/Overview.html Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#top Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#top Referrer: Comment: While reading the spec for the embed element at <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-preview/the-embed-element.html> I stumbled about this sentence: When the element is created with neither a src attribute nor a type attribute, and when attributes are removed such that neither attribute is present on the element anymore, and when the element has a media element ancestor, and when the element has an ancestor object element that is not showing its fallback content, any plugins instantiated for the element must be removed, and the embed element represents nothing. And my internal stack protection immediately kicked in while trying to parse it. Can't you make this easier to parse correctly by braking it down to something like this: The plugin instantiated for the embed element must be removed and the element must represent nothing: * When the element is created with neither a src attribute nor a type attribute, * when attributes are removed such that neither attribute is present on the element anymore * when the element has a media element ancestor, * when the element has an ancestor object element that is not showing its fallback content That seems much easier to parse as the action is clearly stated at the top and then the preconditions are clearly listed at equal footing so it is easy to see that they are all equally important and there is no nesting involved in the conditions. Posted from: 92.231.242.149 User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_9_2) AppleWebKit/537.74.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/7.0.2 Safari/537.74.9 102873 1 spamfaenger 2014-03-25 11:08:35 +0000 Submitter here, now with account. :) 103207 2 ian 2014-03-31 22:13:09 +0000 Yup, that should be easy to fix. Note that you really don't want to be reading that version of the spec. The up-to-date version is at: http://whatwg.org/html 103218 3 spamfaenger 2014-04-01 07:52:13 +0000 Not sure if this is noteworthy, but ogling the spec it seems to me that this phrasing seems to occur in quite some places (though I'm not so sure it's exactly the same). 105010 4 ian 2014-05-03 00:26:59 +0000 If you find any other parts that need clearing up, don't hesitate to file a bug. (You can trivially do so using the text entry widget at the bottom right of the canonical version of the spec: http://whatwg.org/html ) 105011 5 contributor 2014-05-03 00:27:20 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r8602. Check-in comment: Make this sentence about <embed> less convoluted. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=8601&to=8602