- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:07:37 +0200
- 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