W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > January 2008

Re: [selectors-api] Best practice in HTML wellformed documents

From: Diego La Monica (IWA/HWG) <d.lamonica@webprofession.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 21:02:41 +0100
Message-ID: <e4cd4de70801021202t5c8ab15ahce810f5ab597201a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>, "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-webapi@w3.org
On 02/01/2008, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:09:52 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile
> <chaals@opera.com> wrote:
> > As far as I know the group has never resolved a particular preference
> > for terse HTML markup over XHTML. Does anyone think that the value of
> > such a resolution would justify the debate it will entail?
>
> I think we should leave examples up to the editors. I also think that
> changing examples that are perfectly fine is best avoided as the chance of
> introducing errors is great. For instance, the suggested replacement is
> not conforming.


Sorry Anne,
  I not mean that editors are doing a wrong work, but I think that making
the examples full compliant both with HTML and XHTML is the perfect way to
avoid HTML developers to led in errors. The example in the section 1.1 of
the current WD uses an example that is semantically correct only in HTML 4
(and the will 5?) but if someone would use the example in an XHTML page, it
will produce an invalid  XHTML document.
If we, instead, use an XHTML syntax (for the same example), when we will use
it in our HTML 4 pages all works fine: the benefits are for all.
We are suggesting to improve the documentation not for us, but for all.
Remember: We are simply "Leading the web to it's full Potential..." (from:
http://www.w3.org ). Are you agree?

--
Diego La Monica (IWA/HWG)
Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2008 20:02:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:00 GMT