Re: PR-HTML40

Neil St.Laurent (neil@bigpic.com)
Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:18:19 -0600


Message-Id: <199711131610.JAA00218@underworld.bigpic.com>
From: "Neil St.Laurent" <neil@bigpic.com>
To: Jukka Korpela <jkorpela@cc.hut.fi>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:18:19 -0600
CC: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: PR-HTML40

> this clear, to oneself too, and gets an error message from a
> validator if one hasn't realized that the paragraph actually was
> implicitly terminated - perhaps against author's intentions -
> previously..

It is often annoying to write code that requires end tags.  There are 
cases where there isn't ambiguity and the code is simply easier
to modify without end tags, as in the case of <LI> elements.
Also consider the following problem with a list:

<UL>
  <LI><P>This is some text</P>
  </LI>
</UL>
 
Under HTML 4.0 strict the <LI> has one element content, the <P>, 
since it allows only block level elements.  Under HTML 4.0 loose 
there are actually 2 conetnts, the <P> content and the extra space at 
the end.  This wouldn't have been a prolem had the </P> and </LI> 
just been left out.

(sorry, shameless plug) For reasons like you mention however our validator 
actually gives warnings about all implicitly closed tags.

> specific layout. I don't favor that, but how could the browser know
> whether the ALT text is actually meaningless, as it often is, so
> that omitting it causes less damage than deviating from the desired
> dimensions?

I think it is all easily solved simply by having different versions 
of the web page.  HTML is incapable of truly separating presentation 
from the content (in it's current state).  From what I see this 
requires a more flexible language that allows for various condition 
checks and programming logic.  This type of behaviour is seen in 
various sites with alternate paths and is facilitated by various 
consumer products (such as our own).

> copies of a manifest literal (instead of a named constant)
> throughout a program. And as realistist know, the phrase "one should
> remember to check" actually means "you'll goof it up"..

I think at some point we have to stop trying to make the standard 
incoporate what are perceived as good practices for the developer 
(look at the severe downfalls Java has because of that approach).  I 
don't think it's too much to ask that the author verifies their image 
sizes are right, or that the tags are closed correctly.  There are 
thousands of tools out there that do this type of stuff 
automatically, why does it need to be in the standard?

__
| Mortar: Advanced Web Development <http://bigpic.com/mortar/>
| Neil St.Laurent  neil@bigpic.com
| Big Picture Multimedia