On 10/08/2011 11:19 AM, Daniel Friesen wrote:
Would you like to argue for a $wgStricterParsing bool that will sacrifice parser output consistency for things like folding == headers into parent th's (perhaps turn into a span if they explicitly use a<h#> instead of ==), and other things we haven't been able to do to the parser for compat reasons?
Sure. I'll argue for that. :)
That was a HTML4/XHTML1 rule that's been removed. An empty<ul></ul> is valid HTML5.
I wasn't sure if the empty <ul> was valid HTML5, or if the validator wasn't strict enough about it yet. In any event, I'm happy to take your word for it. If XHTML support is being deprecated, I won't argue for fixing the empty <ul> elements. As I mentioned, the only two features that were a concern for me in providing valid HTML(5) were the two meta elements, and it's been suggested that each of these can be removed.
I still think that having 'link' and 'top' anchors on section headings next to edit links would be a good thing to have on by default in core. There is provision for disabling them, and having them available by default is a sensible and productive course of action in my opinion. It's handy to be able to right-click on the 'link' anchor and copy the canonical URL of the section you're looking at, and it's handy to be able to jump back to the top of the page (indeed, I discovered that the #top functionality was already half implemented, so presumably there is a plan for something like this).