- From: Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:31:22 -0400
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
I personally find that having such an uncommon syntax is actually distracting. On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>wrote: > 2012-09-13 21:15, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > Hixie purposely varied his style across >> examples, to show that certain variances in the syntax were allowed >> and perfectly fine. >> > > Oh, I see. It's somewhat questionable if you ask me. Varying the syntax > _within a document_ is something different from the liberty of choosing > one's style. But I guess the reader is assumed to treat the examples as > quotations that reflect different styles (and style is consistent within > each example). > > Still, I wouldn't do that. I don't think authors really need to be > reminded of the possibility of writing <Section> instead of the most common > way, <section>, and the next common one, <SECTION>. People who have some > special reason for writing, say, > > <sEcTIon > > claSs > > = foo > > > > > should probably check the syntax definition details if in doubt, and just > go ahead (maybe using a validator) if not. > > Yucca > > >
Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 18:31:51 UTC