W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2007

Re: [W3C docs] We should teach by example.

From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 00:33:33 +0200
Message-Id: <p0624060dc2b469049370@[192.168.0.102]>
To: <public-html@w3.org>
Cc: bert@w3.org

At 22:42 +0200 UTC, on 2007-07-06, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

[...]

[re: quality of source code of <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/diff/>]

> Anyone who has comments on the source code of the html4-differences or
> html5 specification should talk to Bert Bos from the W3C about changing
> the CSS Module generator script that generates the final source code for
> this and many other specifications.

FWIW, I don't understand what the OP means with "accessibility of the source
code". The only immediate problems I spot are
- The current mix of sometimes using optional closing tags and sometimes not
is probably a bad signal to authors -- at the very least it should be
consistent, but preferably it would use explicit closing tags even when
they're not required. It's a given that HTML doesn't require them, but
authors are confused about when they are and when they aren't required, which
results in invalid markup. W3C setting the example by always explicitly
closing everything is probably a good idea.
- Probably that same consistency should be applied to quoting attribute
values: always quote.
- Why the empty title attributes? My favourite UA's default Style Sheet says
*[title] {border-bottom:dotted thin inherit; cursor:help}. Puts me on the
wrong foot when @title is empty.

I've no idea to what extent W3C's publication tools are the limiting factor
here. Bert CC-ed, as suggested.


-- 
Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 22:43:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:46 UTC