25501 2014-04-29 15:21:09 +0000 3.2.4.1 missing discussion of 'empty' content model 2016-04-25 20:28:27 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG HTML5 spec unspecified PC All RESOLVED FIXED P2 editorial --- 25532 1 kgroves faulkner.steve arronei faulkner.steve mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 104685 0 kgroves 2014-04-29 15:21:09 +0000 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 104688 1 faulkner.steve 2014-04-29 16:00:38 +0000 (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 104813 2 mike 2014-04-30 14:03:55 +0000 (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). 104814 3 kgroves 2014-04-30 14:20:20 +0000 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. 104900 4 faulkner.steve 2014-05-01 08:32:02 +0000 (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? 104906 5 kgroves 2014-05-01 12:00:11 +0000 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 126121 6 arronei 2016-04-25 20:28:27 +0000 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!