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

* Chris Lilley wrote:
>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.

Oh please, you already pointed out that XHTML fragments as used in the
CDF drafts are no problem whatsoever even though these are subject to
the same "problem". It's sad you need to resort to talking about
"junk", "minimum quality", "error-correcting parsing modes",
"unambiguous parsing", "invalid or malformed examples", and other
nonsense like the above or

>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.

to back your request to use less HTML syntax. HTML fragments are just
as fine as XHTML fragments. You'd like the CSS specifications to use
more XML/XHTML syntax and the Working Group agrees, as Ian pointed
out, new examples typically aren't HTML examples. You don't even
insist on using XHTML, adding some end tags and quote marks here and
there and pretending the HTML fragments are in some hypothetical XML
format  is apparently fine, too.

You've even agreed that stating that the HTML fragments are legal SGML
text entities with respect to the HTML4 SGML declaration, DTD, etc is
satisfactory, even though that's just a complicated way of saying that
HTML4 fragments are HTML4 fragments. So you aren't really requesting
anything here, you are just trying to distract from the lack of
technical argument to support your request.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Saturday, 27 August 2005 08:14:52 UTC