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 20:04:21 +0000 (UTC)
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: Adam Kuehn <akuehn@nc.rr.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0508261937280.26016@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Chris Lilley wrote:
>>> 
>>> Here I think is where the fundamental disagreement lies.  Rather than 
>>> "neophilic adherence to fashionable syntaxes", I think most would 
>>> phrase it as "advocating careful coding practices".  But if the 
>>> majority of the WG feels that the risks outweigh any benefit, then it 
>>> doesn't much matter which spin one puts on it, does it?
>> 
>> I don't understand why adding "</P>" in that example is good.
> 
> Its good because it then becomes well formed xml, thus conforming to 
> minimal levels of quality for that particular document language.

It's not XML, it's HTML, and it's a perfectly fine extract of a valid HTML 
document. I really don't see the problem.


> The example is not conformant to the HTML 4 specification, nor is it 
> indicated that this is the particular version of the specification that 
> the example is attempting to conform to.

1.4.4 says "All HTML examples conform to the HTML 4.0 strict DTD", so it 
is indicated what language the extract is from.


>> All it does is increase the number of nodes in the DOM.
> 
> That depends on which of the multiple error-correcting parsing modes is 
> used.

There is no error checking here. It's a fragment of a conformant document.


> But feel free to clean up the empty text node if it troubles you.

What troubles me is making the example more complicated. We've already 
seen people give feedback saying that the existing HTML examples are 
perfectly fine and that making your suggested changes won't help, the 
latest such feedback being:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2005Aug/0314.html


> Its rather sad to see this sort of allergic reaction to the mere 
> suggestion of making something be conforming XML, in this day and age; 
> see the related comment about unclear applicability to XML.

It has nothing to do with using XML or not -- as I mentioned, every 
example added to the spec since CSS2 was in REC has used XML. It is simply 
about not making pointless, potentially error-introducing editorial 
changes purely to jump on the latest syntax bandwagon.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 20:04:34 GMT

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