Simon Pieters

Is the idea to allow `` and such? Or only ``? If the former, you need to change the definition of phrasing content to include "`option` (if it is a...

This doesn't define optional tags for `` and `` correctly. The definition for "have a particular element in select scope" may be needed for that, but should be changed to...

- Need to check that a `select` element is in scope so that parsing of option/optgroup tags outside of `select` doesn't change. Example `123` - Need to add `select` to...

The "in select scope" I think should be removed altogether since it assumes the stack will not have other elements when in a `select`, which is no longer the case....

It would be a breaking change from what is conforming HTML today, and break compat for sites that omit `` and `` tags. It's the same as why we can't...

`` is not allowed in `select` today, so it's not a change in behavior for conforming HTML. I think there's an implied contract of not breaking content that follows HTML's...

> It would be a breaking change from what is conforming HTML today To clarify, I meant: It would be a breaking change for existing conforming HTML content.

`hr` in `select` was added just last year, so we shouldn't flip-flop on that. But it could be allowed only as a sibling to an `option` element in the content...

Since the content model in https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/10586 only allows `div` and `span`, maybe there's less need to "aggressively" close elements when seeing `option` or `optgroup`. Is only `div` and `span` the...

If we envision allowing more HTML elements later, then we should at least generate implied end tags, so that HTML authoring rules are somewhat consistent. For example, it should be...