- From: Jon Barnett <jonbarnett@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 15:21:48 -0500
- To: "Philip TAYLOR" <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org>
- Cc: "Michael A. Puls II" <shadow2531@gmail.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <bde87dd20707061321g58073878he2f0819674e3f702@mail.gmail.com>
On 7/6/07, Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org> wrote: > Michael A. Puls II wrote: > > > > 1. I don't see any explicit closings for P, LI, BODY, HTML and some > DDs. > Bad Why? > 2. I don't see attributes being quoted. > Some are, but those that aren't : bad Why? > 3. I see the HTML4.01 doctype being used without the dtd URI. > Debatable Why? Since the advent of XHTML there has been confusion among authors that their HTML must now look like XML, while they continue to serve it as text/html. You would be surprised how many authors are not aware that: - many end tags are optional, including </body> and </html> (I have personally seen a server-side include called footer.inc that did nothing but spit out </body></html>), as well as many other end tag - some start tags are optional, including <html>, <head>, <body>, and <tbody> - some elements exist in the DOM even if their start tags are omitted, the canonical example being <tbody>, where authors expect a <tr> to be the .firstChild of a <table>, or "table > tr" to match something in CSS (I'm sure there's a browser that does...) - attributes without spaces don't require quotes - DOCTYPE is almost completely useless. I have been in online and face-to-face conversations where authors think that DOCTYPE will actually DO something in a browser other than change the rendering mode from quirks mode to standards mode I can agree that the source should be human-readable - proper tabbing and line breaks. However, if the specification of that defines HTML's syntax - optional tags, quoting, and all - actually uses some of that optional syntax in its source, that is a Good Thing. It serves as an example of what valid HTML MAY look like. > 4. I see Anne's email address in the href where the @ is not > > properly-encoded to %40 in the mailto URI. > Are you certain that it is a reserved character in HTML ? @ shouldn't be encoded when it is separating the user and domain portion of the URI. It should be encoded elsewhere (which is why my FTP login on a certain server is ftp://username%40example.com@example.com)
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 20:21:53 UTC