9358 2010-03-28 21:01:16 +0000 Explanation of content model requirements could be improved 2010-10-04 14:28:12 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified PC All CLOSED FIXED http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#conformance-requirements-for-authors P2 normal --- 1 mjs ian ayg ian mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 34000 0 mjs 2010-03-28 21:01:16 +0000 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. 34496 1 mjs 2010-04-04 08:15:26 +0000 (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. 34497 2 ian 2010-04-04 08:54:31 +0000 > * <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. 34498 3 contributor 2010-04-04 08:56:59 +0000 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 34499 4 mjs 2010-04-04 09:03:30 +0000 Looks good to me.