- From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:53:26 +1000
- To: "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "HTML Working Group" <public-html@w3.org>
I agree with both points in this thread. I'd like all tutorials and documentation for authors to represent "best practice", and understanding XML syntax (closing tags, nesting, etc) is very useful; helps developers adapt to other languages like XSLT and Atom etc. On a personal note, it reduces the amount of retraining and negotiating I have to do with new developers :) But I also completely agree with Anne's view that UAs should continue to be as forgiving, and defining how that happens (consistently) is a major aspect of HTML5. Does seem that separating the UA implementation spec and HTML authoring advice is the way to manage this. I guess I better stop reading emails and starting reading those tutorials :) On 6/19/07, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> wrote: > > > Le 19 juin 2007 à 06:04, Dan Connolly a écrit : > > When introducing the language to authors, I prefer to stay within > > the bounds of XML. I understand from instructors that this goes > > over well with students. (I hope some of the instructors on this > > list will chime in to give 1st-hand evidence.) > > Definitely. XHTML and XML rules of syntax are a lot easier to teach. > > > I don't know if I feel strongly enough about it to make a detailed > > design change proposal. But if anyone is writing new tutorial > > material, that's what I suggest. > > I'm really tempted to write this tutorial, but it doesn't seem > reasonable until the new HTML WG staff contact is nominated. > > > -- > Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ > W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead > QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/ > *** Be Strict To Be Cool *** > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 05:53:29 UTC