- From: Chris Wilson (PSD) <cwilso@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 09:11:00 -0800
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Chris Lilley, Technical Author and JISC representative to W3C
>Chris Wilson says:
>> I would say [...] _encapsulates_ an attribute
>> specification. The end of the attribute value might otherwise need to
be
>> terminated by a ) or a , (context sensitivity or grouping, respectively).
>
>Context sensitivity _requires_ (using current syntax) ( and ) anyway.
I know that... I do read specs...
>So it is not a case of "might otherwise require". There is absolutely no
>ambiguity and no need to terminate anything with a superfluous extra token.
>
>I suspect the only reason you think it is needed is the choice of [ as a
>token to announce that an attribute value is coming. We are used to seeing
[
>matched up with ]
I did not say it was necessary. Exactly, we are used to seeing [ matched up
with ]. Mindset is, as I have said, a powerful thing.
>Tell me, if I have foo.bar, should that be followed by a trailing ] or not.
Why?
Certainly not - it is not encapsulated. There was no [ beginning the item,
why should there be a ] to end it? I don't want a syntax that has a single
required token-delimiter, I just want some logical encapsulation.
My point was that if you throw out the closing ], any of the characters
"),{" might end the selector, instead of only "]".
>> I'd still vote for it, the same way I wish <LI> were forced to be a
>> container.
>
>LI *is a container. What is your point here?
*Forced* is the key word here. Forced as in people actually use it as such,
instead of doing
<UL>
<LI>foo
<LI>bar
</UL>
-Chris
Received on Friday, 8 December 1995 12:13:05 UTC