- From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:49:35 +0100
- To: Nickolas Nansen <nick_nansen@hotmail.com>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
I agree with most of Nickolas's points, although > It's not always easy to keep track of how many div's to end at the > end of the local code seems odd to one who always ends his tags as soon as he starts them (that is, I write <div></div> and then re-position the cursor rather than writing <div> and then relying on memory). I also find > Besides indenting rarely works so well it should be used > as an indicator of relations. rather odd : if only Dreamweaver would leave my indentation alone (/particularly/ when using Library elements and templates), I would find indentation normally sufficient, except where the open and close tags are so far apart vertically that their alignment cannot be visually compared. However, I do strongly support the suggestion of allowing attributes on end tags : > With attributes > <div id="design"> > <div id="content"> > <div id="maincontent"> > <div id="related"> > Content > </div id="related"> > </div id="maincontent"> > </div id="content"> > </div id="design"> and although I hear (and have heard many times before) the counter-argument (HTML is XHTML is XML, and XML doesn't allow attributes there), I do continue to wonder if carrying all the baggage of XML is really worth the effort : are there as yet /any/ browsers that use a real XML parser to handle XHTML, any more than there are browsers that use a real SGML parser to handle HTML ? I often feel that we are in grave danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater by blindly adopting as our masters standards that in reality have little if any influence on what really happens in the browser ... Philip Taylor
Received on Saturday, 24 June 2006 08:48:26 UTC