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: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:37:15 +0200
Message-ID: <1688396467.20050829193715@w3.org>
To: "Kornel Lesinski" <kornel@osiolki.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

On Saturday, August 27, 2005, 2:17:56 AM, Kornel wrote:

KL> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:33:04 +0100, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:

>> 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.

KL> If this example is changed to:

KL> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
KL> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
KL> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
KL> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
KL> <head>
KL> <title>Example of a p in a div</title>
KL> </head>
KL> <body>
KL> <div>Some text
KL> <p>More text</p>
KL> </div>
KL> </body>
KL> </html>

KL> We won't know that it is valid XHTML/1.1! It will be "feasibly valid",  
KL> because there might be some imaginary text before XML declaration

now you understand why I asked for copies in external files. However,
note that I didn't ask for snippets to be made complete documents - they
could equally be well formed snippets. However, repliess indicated that
the editors would rather conform to HTML 4.01 which is fine by me (but
does require a DOCTYPE, as HTML 4 claims to be SGML).

KL> or it
KL> might have been sent using imaginary HTTP protocol specyfying invalid  
KL> encoding that makes example not well-formed.

KL> I postulate that all CSS examples are presented with complete set of  
KL> HTTP/1.1 headers using transfer-encoding:chunked to ensure that presented
KL> code is well-formed, valid and advocates careful coding practices.

;)

KL> Seriously though, even HTML4.01 spec is full of junk examples, according
KL> to your criteria.

Yes .... which is no excuse for a more modern specification.



-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 17:37:29 GMT

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