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 22:33:04 +0200
Message-ID: <1348835595.20050826223304@w3.org>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Adam Kuehn <akuehn@nc.rr.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, <www-style@w3.org>

On Friday, August 26, 2005, 10:04:21 PM, Ian wrote:

IH> 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.

IH> It's not XML, it's HTML,

OK cool , so conform to that if you want. It is, as you noted, harder to
conform to than XML but if you want to go for the harder option, feel
free as long as the majority of examples use XML.

IH> and it's a perfectly fine extract of a valid HTML
IH> document.

How do we know that? Its *potentially* an extract of a valid HTML 4.01
document. Its "feasibly valid". But if, for example, it was a child of
head, or title, or img, or P, then it would not be valid.

IH>  I really don't see the problem.

I would have thought that the value of conforming to whatever
specification defines the document you are trying to style is trivially
obvious. You have in this thread pointed out subtleties of how many
nodes there are, exactly what the parse tree is, etc which affect the
examples. Thus, precision is vital to testability.


>> 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.

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

The fact that all HTML examples are (claimed to be) HTML 4.0 Strict is

a) the reason for the request to change most of them to XHTML
b) an argument for the ease of making them valid

>>> 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.

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

Actually we don't know that.

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

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

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

The idea that ordinary mortals will be so perturbed by a closing </P> or
whatever that their heads explode rang hollow when I first heard it in
1993 or thereabouts, and sounds even less likely now.

>> 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.

IH> It has nothing to do with using XML or not

Good, I am glad to see that the request to use mainly XML examples has
been accepted.

IH> -- as I mentioned, every
IH> example added to the spec since CSS2 was in REC has used XML. It is simply
IH> about not making pointless, potentially error-introducing editorial 
IH> changes purely to jump on the latest syntax bandwagon.

See, its phrases like "latest syntax bandwagon" that give the impression
the CSS WG does not care for XML. Since CSS 2.1 claims to be suitable
for XML in general, a little more effort making such a claim plausible
would be much appreciated.

Alternatively, and much less desirably, only claim that CSS2.1 is for
HTML <=4.01, or HTML and XHTML, or some such.



-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 20:33:16 GMT

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