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

Re: 3.1 Introduction (Draft), review of

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:55:23 -0700
Cc: Philip Taylor <philip@zaynar.demon.co.uk>, public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <FD0DAF52-4E11-40B3-9DF6-331214A84985@apple.com>
To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>

On Jul 16, 2007, at 10:28 PM, Robert Burns wrote:

> On Jul 16, 2007, at 10:00 PM, Robert Burns wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 2007, at 9:44 PM, Philip Taylor wrote:
>>> Robert Burns wrote:
>>>> First, I think there's a danger of going into too much detail   
>>>> regarding optional tags. The only things I think might need to be  
>>>> in  an introductory section (maybe) are:
>>>> 1) that empty elements must have their closing tag omitted unless  
>>>> an  author uses the xml-style self-closing tag (e.g., <link />).
>>>> 2) that empty elements must be closed when using the xml   
>>>> serialization: i..e., either (<link></link> or <link />)
>>>> So to avoid this confusion and simplify things, it may make sense  
>>>> to  always recommend (or as far as this introduction goes, just  
>>>> gloss- over the difference so that authors use) the self-closing  
>>>> tag for  empty elements.
>>> Teaching authors about XML-style self-closing tags is also a cause  
>>> of confusion.
>> Just to clarify, when I wrote "empty elements", I meant canonically  
>> empty elements (i.e., elements required to be empty). Yes, I agree  
>> that encouraging the shortcut everywhere be a bad thing for the  
>> text/html serialization. I don't think any of your following  
>> examples relate to that.
> What I meant to say here is that none of the examples relate to the  
> elements with empty content models and that the examples you listed  
> are specifically elements that do not have empty content models. I  
> think we if advised authors to use the self-closing tag on elements  
> with empty content models (and highlighted how the chapter shows  
> those at the beginning of each section/subsection), that would be a  
> simple guideline to follow (for an introductory section). Getting  
> into more detail than that right there (e.g., discussing differences  
> between xml and non-xml serializations) would be counter-productive.

I think its better to advise authors that some tags don't have a close  
tag, and list what those are. That seems less confusing than telling  
them to use a self-closing syntax in such cases, when that syntax does  
not in fact indicate self-closing in HTML at all.

Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 06:55:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:24 UTC