W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2009

Re: Proposed W3C Spec Conventions

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:05:11 -0800
Message-ID: <4B0DAA17.40504@inkedblade.net>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
CC: www-archive@w3.org
Doug Schepers wrote:
> Hi, fantasai-
> 
> fantasai wrote (on 11/25/09 12:47 PM):
>> Doug Schepers wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also, IMHO <code> should also be acceptable
>>>> in place of <i> when marking up bits of code rather than bits of
>>>> English.
>>>>
>>>> 4. Use <code> for your code markup, not <span>. That means attributes,
>>>> elements, values, etc.
>>>
>>> IIRC, <code> wasn't consistently stylable, which is why the SVG WG
>>> used the more complicated nesting of <span
>>> class="attr"><code>foo</code></span>... if there aren't issues
>>> anymore, I'd be very happy to simplify the markup (which I have done
>>> in the new draft).
>>
>> I have no idea what issues you were having with <code> not being styleable.
>> I've never run into such problems myself.
>>
>> Maybe you're complaining about things like
>> <code><pre>...</pre></code>
>> not working? That would be because the markup is invalid.
>> ...
>> What I'm objecting to is the things like <span
>> class="..."><code>...</code></span>
>> that you had. The span is excessive.
> 
> Yup, I totally agree, but there was some reason the SVG WG was doing 
> that... Cameron reflected it in his build script, so I think it was 
> still the case just recently, but with him on hiatus, I don't know the 
> rationale.
> 
> In any case, I was happy to simplify it... let me know if the new markup 
> is to your satisfaction.

Right, so like I said

 >> Maybe you're complaining about things like
 >> <code><pre>...</pre></code>
 >> not working? That would be because the markup is invalid.

It's still invalid.

Maybe this will get this point across:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FPeople%2FSchepers%2Fspec-conventions.html&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0

For defining instance of term, I prefer a convention that uses
   <dt><dfn>term</dfn></dt>
instead of
   <dt>term</dt>
as I sometimes use the latter for things that shouldn't get marked up in
the index as defining instances of a term.

Note HTML5's explanation here:
   http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/grouping-content.html#the-dt-element
specifically
   "The dt element itself, when used in a dl element, does not indicate that its contents
    are a term being defined, but this can be indicated using the dfn element."

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 25 November 2009 22:05:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:36 UTC