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

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

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:13:08 +0200
Message-ID: <642657132.20050826171308@w3.org>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-style@w3.org

On Friday, August 26, 2005, 4:40:22 PM, Ian wrote:

IH> 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.

IH> Since making HTML examples such as:

IH>    <H2>hello</H2>

IH> ...valid would require significant amounts of extraneous and confusing 
IH> markup, and since converting all such examples into XML fragments would 
IH> almost certainly (based on extensive past experiences trying to make such
IH> changes) introduce a large number of new unknown errors to the document,

wow, really? I'm not sure what you refer to.

<h2>hello</h2> would introduce what errors exactly?

IH> would you be satisfied if HTML examples in CSS 2.1 were written such that
IH> they are extracts of valid documents?

Can you point to a definition of 'extract of (a) valid document'? I'm
not aware of one.

IH> It is my concern that if all the examples were always made fully valid,

Note that I did not ask for this, except in the case where fully valid
happens to be the minimum quality level.

IH>  as
IH> opposed to being simply extracts from valid examples, the primary intent
IH> of the examples would be lost.

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

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

IH> ..to:

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

IH> Changing the example to be fully valid HTML here would be confusing, IMHO,
IH> as it would detract from the point;

yes, I agree, but note that making it valid HTML 4.01 is only one
possible path.

IH> making it XML would run the risk of significant errors being
IH> introduced (e.g. forgetting to update the longdesc description of
IH> the image).

I find this unconvincing. Anonymous block boxes
  In a fragment like this:
    Some text
    <P>More text</P>

the fragment is itself a well formed XML document, thus meeting the
minimum quality criteria. As I said earlier, feel free to surpass the
minimum (for example making it an XHTML fragment).

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 15:13:15 UTC

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