- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:14:24 +0000
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- CC: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>, Steve Axthelm <steveax@pobox.com>, HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
Karl Dubost wrote: > > > Le 6 déc. 2007 à 21:42, Geoffrey Sneddon a écrit : >> On 5 Dec 2007, at 23:54, Steve Axthelm wrote: >>> In the Tags section, do also need to document if an element's start >>> and end tags are optional? >> I think this is vital: it's too tedious jumping around so much looking >> up the list of omittable tags. > > Interesting. In terms of benefits, I see it on the other side. > Regular syntax rules are usually easier to learn. If we do not mention > the omit tags, people will be encouraged to close them always, it > doesn't hurt interoperability. > And the "übergeeks" can still do what they want by looking at the > hardcore specification. > > I'm in favor of not promoting optional end tags, to just ask people to > always close their elements. One problem with putting "lies to children"[1] in such a document is that it can undermine trust in tools that are written to the actual spec. For example consider the sequence of events: * An author reads the authoring guide and is led to believe that all tags must be closed * The author forgets an optional end tag in one of their documents * They validate the document against validator.nu and find no errors * They subsequently notice the missing end tag and assume the validator was in error; their subsequent trust in the validator is undermined. * The author either does not bother to validate in the future or ignores legitimate errors it flags, believing it is not trustworthy. Similarly, a tool that chose to output conforming code with optional tags omitted might be incorrectly accused of producing non-conforming markup, unfairly damaging the reputation of that tool. Given this I strongly believe that any W3C-stamped authoring guide should cover the full language and that recommendations about the best way to code should be written as suggestions not (inaccurate) requirements. If people want to promote a restricted subset of the language, that's fine, but I think it should happen outside of the W3C so it is not confused with the actual specification. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children -- "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?" -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2007 13:15:46 UTC