- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:31:56 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > > > We haven't discussed it yet. I hadn't really thought about it but given: > > > > <pre><code> ... </code></pre> > > <blockcode> ... </blockcode> > > To use <pre><code> like <blockcode>, one would have to style it with > > pre>code:only-child { display: block; } Hm? Why? > > I think we'll probably be "stuck" with HTML for a very long time -- at > > least as long as it takes for XML to have a variant created that has > > well-defined error handling rules other than the author-hostile "abort > > processing immediately". > > I don't understand what's wrong with the XML error handling. I think > it's great because errors should be caught and handled during the > authoring process and by the CMS, which XML essentially forces. Many people feel that a minor typo in their document should not cause their page to stop rendering altogether. I have spoken with a _lot_ of authors who really do not like XML's draconian error handling, including many authors who are always ensuring their documents are valid. I myself have occasionally made typos and other mistakes that, if I had used XML, would have left my site unusable, without my knowledge, for several hours at a time. Personally I don't have a strong opinion; so long as the error handling is defined I don't really mind if it is draconian or error recovery. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2005 02:31:56 UTC