Re: Caveat Tag Salad (Was: some ERB decisions)
At 06:30 PM 10/20/96 GMT, Charles F. Goldfarb wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Oct 1996 02:57:23 -0400, Arjun Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>Yet, I'd like to point out (at the risk of bothersome repetition) that the
>>*real life* experience of HTML suggests that we ignore the possibility of
>>tag salad at our peril.
>>Simply assuming that it's "obvious" people will get their nesting right,
>>when explicit labelling of endtags makes the error particularly
>>*non*-obvious, is *very* unwise, IMHO.
>Is it accurate to conclude from your argument that:
>1) It would be best to have *only* empty end-tags as that would guarantee
>nesting in all cases (although not necessarily the nesting intended by the
Yes, that's been my preference all along (see #195 on this list, from Sept 15.)
I have considerable sympathy for the DPH argument (having done quite a lot
of such quick-and-dirty stuff myself), but it's based on a *historical* lack
of tools, in turn attributable to SGML parsing packages being extremely
non-trivial to develop. In the long run, reliance on the DPH's talents
doesn't bode well for system robustness; nor does ease of ad-hacking strike
me as a particularly meritorious design principle.
In contrast, I have no sympathy for the "graceful recovery" argument,
because "graceful" is in the eyes of the beholder, and if (or when) a
particular form of gracefulness becomes popular, usage will converge to a de
facto standard rather than what RTFM might say. I am not at all sanguine
that such a de facto standard will be what seems "obvious" to people who
think nesting is "obvious". Moreover, whatever form of error recovery does
get implemented in a parser, I have yet to see an argument that explicitly
named endtags actually make parsing algorithms easier.
>2) If we allow (or require) named end-tags, we must also allow end-tags to be
>omitted when the named end-tag of a containing element occurs (at least as the
>required form of error recovery).
Not necessarily, or rather, this is *not* an argument for OMITTAG. It's
actually a new kind of minimization (isn't SHORTTAG up for review
anyway?:-)), i.e. a named endtag is shorthand for all, er, contextually
required endtags and "expands" to the necessary number of anonymous endtags.
With this rule, error recovery doesn't apply at all!