W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2005

Re: [CSS21] Wider variety of (non-junk) examples requested

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:40:22 +0000 (UTC)
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0508261431210.7575@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Chris Lilley wrote:
> Getting back to the original point, the minimal quality level that 
> satisfies the objection is to make all examples either well formed (if 
> they are XML) or (if they are SGML, not XML) valid. Please let me know 
> how the CSS WG plans to resolve this comment; your initial response is 
> not a satisfactory resolution.

Since making HTML examples such as:


...valid would require significant amounts of extraneous and confusing 
markup, and since converting all such examples into XML fragments would 
almost certainly (based on extensive past experiences trying to make such 
changes) introduce a large number of new unknown errors to the document, 
would you be satisfied if HTML examples in CSS 2.1 were written such that 
they are extracts of valid documents?

It is my concern that if all the examples were always made fully valid, as 
opposed to being simply extracts from valid examples, the primary intent 
of the examples would be lost.

To give an example of what I am proposing, I would suggest changing from the following:

| Anonymous block boxes
| In a document like this:
| <DIV>
|   Some text
|   <P>More text
| </DIV>

..to: Anonymous block boxes
  In a fragment like this:
    Some text
    <P>More text

Changing the example to be fully valid HTML here would be confusing, IMHO, 
as it would detract from the point; making it XML would run the risk of 
significant errors being introduced (e.g. forgetting to update the 
longdesc description of the image).

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 14:40:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:20 UTC