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

Re: FAQ about reasons behind CSS

From: P.Taylor <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:38:44 +0200
To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <20050705213838.CDAB21F02AB@smtp.bulldogdsl.com>



David Woolley wrote:

[snip]

> I wouldn't have thought [</>] terribly useful in HTML because you can
> only benefit from it when there are no open elements that have optional
> closing tags.  I guess it is not in XML to provide extra redundancy for
> well formed-ness checking.

I don't follow the logic of that; if there is an open element for which
the closing tag is optional (e.g., <li> ..., if I remember correctly),
then the first </> must close the <li> -- it can't possibly close anything
else.  I also feel that, if your second assertion is correct, then XML
is less rigorous than it might be : requiring (say)

	<div class="Abstract">
		<p class="First"> ... </p>
		 ...
	</div>

rather tnan the less verbose

	<div class="Abstract">
		<p class="First"> ... </>
		 ...
	</>

is (IMHO) still lacking in rigour : if one wants more rigour, one
should require

	<div class="Abstract">
		<p class="First"> ... </p class="First">
		...
	</div class="Abstract">

since otherwise the two </div>s in

	<div class="Abstract">
		<div class="Inner"> ... </div>
		...
	</div>

are no less ambiguous than two </>s would be.  Indeed, even
matching for CLASS is sloppy; for full rigour, one should
match for ID.

Philip Taylor
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2005 21:38:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:39 GMT