This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 11935 - [device] There is no mention of <device> in the parsing algorithm. Could you please add it to the list of self-closing tags.
Summary: [device] There is no mention of <device> in the parsing algorithm. Could you ...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: LC1 HTML5 spec (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-02-01 10:07 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2011-08-04 05:06 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description contributor 2011-02-01 10:07:06 UTC 
Specification: 
Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#adoptionAgency

Comment:
There is no mention of <device> in the parsing algorithm. Could you please add
it to the list of self-closing tags.

Posted from: 194.237.142.17
Comment 1 Anne 2011-02-01 10:12:00 UTC 
It is not self-closing and therefore needs no mention.
Comment 2 Simon Pieters 2011-02-01 12:26:40 UTC 
I dunno, the content model is Empty and the example uses it as a void element, so maybe it was intended to make it a void element in the parser too.
Comment 3 Henri Sivonen 2011-02-01 13:34:01 UTC 
Considering the Degrade Gracefully design principle, it seems like a bad idea to mint new void elements that get used in a general phrasing context. (In the case of <source> and <track>, there's at least the <video> container.)

Can <device> be made non-void with the element content used for a "get yourself a newer browser" message?
Comment 4 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2011-02-03 22:10:48 UTC 
<device> hasn't really been thoroughly thought through yet... we need implementation experience to really know how it should work.

I'm interested in hearing how people think the fallback should work. In particular, I'm interested in seeing realistic pages that would use <device> yet have fallback. In practice I think most of the time pages will only be using <device> after they have featured-tested for it, so I really don't think we need declarative fallback and I don't think it's a problem that it doesn't degrade to the same DOM in the parser. But I don't know, because I haven't seen realistic demo pages yet.
Comment 5 contributor 2011-02-03 22:41:26 UTC 
Checked in as WHATWG revision r5829.
Check-in comment: add a note about <device> parsing
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5828&to=5829
Comment 6 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2011-03-04 01:02:02 UTC 
We'll probably change to an API rather than an element so this might become a non-issue.
Comment 7 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2011-03-15 06:03:44 UTC 
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: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: <device> is gone.
Comment 8 Michael[tm] Smith 2011-08-04 05:06:25 UTC 
mass-moved component to LC1