W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > November 2002

Re: SGML SHORTTAGS Feature usage in HTML 4.x Recommendation.

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 07:59:47 +0100
To: W3C HTML Mailinglist <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <a01060005-1022-7F6DC1D8F6D511D680BC00039300CF5C@[193.157.66.10]>

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

>* Terje Bless wrote:
>>[The] HTML 4.01 Recommendation [...] prohibitions
>                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Recommendations at most.

Ok, if you want to nitpick... Since the text does not contain any "MUST" or
"SHOULD" or "SHALL", what that text in a strict formal sense describes, is
not quite an informational note. Do you really disagree at it's intent that
these features be avoided? Especially in light of the change introduced
with XML and XHTML 1.0?

And as far as I can make out, without access to Memberspace and the email
archives locked away there, the issue of SHORTTAGS was discussed fairly
extensively; and by all accounts supports my position that "SHORTTAGS YES"
is an artifact of the lack of more fine-grained ways of allowing the
various ATTRIB features to be YES while setting the STARTTAG and STOPTAG
features to NO.


>>>The W3C MarkUp Validator may warn authors using such features if you
>>>like it to, without any change to the specification.
>>
>>As was made abundantly clear on this very issue, the second we attempt
>>to apply checks that exceede what we have mandate for from a
>>Recommendation the complaints will come rolling in. Without mandate --
>>from an errata to the HTML Recommendation, a new version of HTML4, or
>>at least a Note from the HTML WG to support it -- the W3C MarkUp
>>Validator _cannot_ apply these checks in any way that is actually
>>useful.
>
>"Warning: ..." is less useful than "Error: ..."?

Apart from the usability aspects of this -- which, BTW, are not
insignificant IMO -- calling this a Warning is not substantially different
from an Error unless mandated. It's also unfortunate from an implementation
standpoint as it would require maintaining a custom patch to OpenSP.

But these are moving fast into mere implementation details so perhaps
better discussed on www-validator...?

-- 
>For all I know they probably have a standard for
>which direction to put the thread on a bolt.

That would be ISO 261:1973.         -- John Cowan
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 02:00:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:53 GMT