HTML5的哪些更多扩展名为“默认”。并且未在HTML5规范中指定？ [英] Which more extensions of HTML5 are "default" and not specified in the HTML5 spec?
问题描述
这里有很多问题，比如这个，询问 HTML5规范。所有 HTML + RDFa 属性，例如词汇， typeOf 和 property ，默认有效，无需命名空间机制。
所以，问题是：如果它是有效的HTML5属性（或元素），并且它不在 HTML5规范中， 我怎么能（或我的算法）知道它有效？
还有另一个 W3C规范说您好，这是受当前其他规格影响的当前规格列表（相互影响的规格）？
注意
也许W3C使用一些原则作为
ignorantia立法neminem excusat （拉丁文为无知的法律借口）
民法国家（？）......所以，在这种情况下，W3C有义务证明上面的相互影响的规范列表。
此处的上下文没有特定的Stackoverflow标记。类似于互操作标准或同一组W3C规范之间的协议......或规范间建议。
这个问题涉及文档有效的含义。尽管我们在有效性的说法中，HTML5规范实际上并未使用术语有效而是一致性。也就是说，它表示HTML文档符合或不符合规范中规定的特定要求。它还说明了可扩展性非常有启发性：
当需要对此规范的供应商中立扩展时，
可以相应地更新此规范，或者可以编写扩展
规范来覆盖此
规范中的要求。当有人将这个规范应用于他们的
活动时，他们决定认可这些
扩展规范的要求，它就成为本规范中一致性要求目的的b $ b的适用规范。 p>
注意：有人可以编写一个规范，将任意字节
流定义为符合要求，然后声称他们的随机垃圾符合
。然而，这并不意味着他们的随机垃圾
实际上符合每个人的目的：如果其他人
决定该规范不适用于他们的工作，那么
他们可以合理地说上面提到的随机垃圾是
就是那个，垃圾，根本就不符合。就一致性
而言，特定社区中重要的是社区
同意适用。
这意味着元素或属性是否有效并不是绝对的，而是取决于希望应用特定规则的社区。所以它与RDFa属性有关：如果你想要它们，它们是有效的，而不是你不想要它们。在更广泛的社区中，哪些元素被认为有效可能会随着时间而改变。如果RDFa不再使用，那么它们将无效。如果RDFa越来越流行，那么这些属性对更广泛的社区变得有效。
因此，谈论定义哪些当前规范形成全套的文档实际上毫无意义有效性要求。该集合必然取决于任何现存的规范，这些规范被接受为每个社区的定义有效性。
There are many questions here, like this one, asking about attributes that not are defined in the HTML5 spec. All the HTML+RDFa attributes, like vocab, typeOf and property, are "valid by default", without necessity of an namespace mechanism.
So, the problem: if it is a "valid HTML5" attribute (or element), and it is not in the HTML5 spec, how can I (or my algorithm) know that it is valid?
There are another W3C spec saying "hello, this is a list of current specifications that are affected by other current specifications" (mutually affected specs)?
NOTES
Perhaps W3C uses some principle as "ignorantia legis neminem excusat" (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses no one") of the Civil law countries (?)... So, in this case, W3C have obligation to show that "list of mutually affected specs" above.
The context here have no specific Stackoverflow-tags. Is something like "interoperating standards" or "agreement between W3C specifications of the same group"... or "inter-spec recommendations".
This question goes to the heart of what it means for a document to be "valid". Although we, in common parlance talk of validity, the HTML5 spec does not actually use the term "valid" but "conformance". That is, it says that an HTML document conforms or does not conform to the specific requirements laid out in the specification. It also says something about extensibility which is very illuminating:
When vendor-neutral extensions to this specification are needed, either this specification can be updated accordingly, or an extension specification can be written that overrides the requirements in this specification. When someone applying this specification to their activities decides that they will recognise the requirements of such an extension specification, it becomes an applicable specification for the purposes of conformance requirements in this specification.
Note: Someone could write a specification that defines any arbitrary byte stream as conforming, and then claim that their random junk is conforming. However, that does not mean that their random junk actually is conforming for everyone's purposes: if someone else decides that that specification does not apply to their work, then they can quite legitimately say that the aforementioned random junk is just that, junk, and not conforming at all. As far as conformance goes, what matters in a particular community is what that community agrees is applicable.
What that means is that whether an element or attribute is valid or not is not absolute but depends on the community that wishes to apply specific rules or not. So it is with the RDFa attributes: they're valid if you want them to be, not if you don't. Within the wider community, what elements are considered valid can change over time. If RDFa falls out of use, then they will be effectively invalid. If RDFa grows in popularity, then those attributes become valid to a wider community.
So, its effectively meaningless to talk of a document that defines which current specs form a full set of validity requirements. The set necessarily depends on any extant specs that are accepted as defining validity for each community.
这篇关于HTML5的哪些更多扩展名为“默认”。并且未在HTML5规范中指定？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
