Re:Foolproof HTML
by kazinator on Sunday February 05, 2017 @12:29PM
(#13573384)
You don't seem to understand what "canonical" means; it's a certain preferred alternative from among correct alternative forms. Often, the canonical form provides some base definition and the other forms can be understood in terms of equivalence to the canonical form. Do we not understand that a body element is added to the document if it is missing? Is there not a body element in the resulting DOM?  If so, then the source syntax which has that body can be considered canonical.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
There are no comments on this comment yet.