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

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

From: Maniac <Maniac@SoftwareManiacs.Org>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:57:18 +0400
Message-ID: <430F49EE.7090407@SoftwareManiacs.Org>
To: Adam Kuehn <akuehn@nc.rr.com>
CC: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-style@w3.org

Adam Kuehn wrote:

> So assuming that is a correct summary, is there some reason the CSS WG 
> would be unwilling to make those relatively minor changes in the name 
> of promoting careful authorship?  (I take it for granted that most of 
> the people reading this list would not leave an unclosed paragraph in 
> their own code.)

I won't speak for a majority of readers, just for myself. I'm not a spec 
writer or WG participant, but an author who actually reads specs.

I confess that I deliberately use unclosed <P>'s, <LI>'s, <TD>'s and 
anything else that HTML 4.01 allows to leave unclosed. Since it's easier 
to write by hand.

And speaking from this position I find this whole thread amusingly 
nitpicking with a notable exception of Ian trying to deliver a very 
simple point of view: examples are examples. They are about to help 
people understand things, not to satisfy every validator of every 
language on earth. And this means that they'd rather be spare of any 
visual clutter.

In this particular example (with unclosed <P>) I think lowering <P> and 
closing it will be absolutely pointless. It won't make notion of 
anonymous block any clearer.
Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 17:05:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:40 GMT