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

Re: Selectors: editorial section 3

From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:06:28 +0000
Message-ID: <43B6AC84.8030901@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: www-style@w3.org
CC: Adam Kuehn <akuehn@nc.rr.com>



Adam Kuehn wrote:

> Although most authorities agree that the commas after "HTML" and "XML" 
> are optional, including them is grammatically correct and in this case 
> is probably the better practice.  On first encountering this sentence, a 
> reader may well interpret "in HTML element names" as a complete phrase 
> and only re-think that construction upon reaching the word "and".  Using 
> the comma following each brief introductory phrase prevents this from 
> happening.  (Incidentally, your proposed alternative is probably 
> incorrect, as well.  The semicolon should be a comma in your proposed 
> phrasing, according to most style guides.  One would use a semicolon 
> only if the conjunction were removed.)

Briefly, yes, but not for the reasons given; the real ambiguity
is that without the comma. "HTML elements names" may be mis-
interpreted as a noun phrase, and backtracking forced when the
"are" is reached rather than the "but".  The proposed semi-
colon is overkill, but one can see the justification -- there
are simply too many commas otherwise.  I would personally
cast

> For example, in HTML, element names are case-insensitive, but in XML, they are case-sensitive. 

as

For example, in HTML, element names are case-insensitive, whereas in XML 
they are case-sensitive.
Received on Saturday, 31 December 2005 16:06:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:42 GMT