W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > September 2012

Re: [whatwg] Problem in the Section "4 Elements of HTML => 4.4 Sections => 4.4.2 The Section element

From: Scott González <scott.gonzalez@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:31:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAO8i3id7-KBr4qW8VYG-e3ZVCQ1VWd8SBZc0kGNZmsz0+Hcwtw@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:45 UTC