W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Publishing a new draft

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:07:37 +0200
Message-ID: <4A7316C9.6070604@malform.no>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren On 09-07-31 17.50:

> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:33:20 +0200, Leif Halvard Silli
> <lhs@malform.no> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> 
>> Why not instead point to Appendix B in HTML 4, which itself
>> lists some things it considers badly supported, and tell
>> which of those things are now now not supported?
> 
> Proposal:
> 
> I turn "esoteric SGML features of HTML 4" into a link to that
> appendix and drop ", such as the NET syntax (i.e. <em/content/)
> and processing instructions" from the document.
> 
> Does that work?


I see that you insist on "esoteric". Hence I suggest hat you keep 
the examples - NET and PI - and instead of adding a link to 
"esoteric", make a link from NET as well as from PI to their 
respective descriptions in Appendix B of HTML 4.

I also suggest that you, just as you've done with NET, add a code 
example for PI - for example "(<?php ?>)" in a paranthesis.

To, in addition, adding "inspired by SGML", as you mention below, 
would be a positive bonus. But as it is already mentioned in the 
draft, it would be more informative to mention the "</" syntax and 
point with a link to HTML 4 (or, better, the Validator FAQ [*]) 
about it.

[*] http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#faq-javascript

> My proposal of replacing ", but is not compatible with the more
> esoteric SGML features of HTML 4, such as the NET syntax (i.e.
> <em/content/) and processing instructions" with " The HTML
> syntax is no longer SGML-based" also still stands. I'd be
> willing to modify that to " The HTML syntax is no longer
> SGML-based, though is inspired by it" if that was your only
> concern.

-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 16:08:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:48 UTC