- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:13:08 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Friday, August 26, 2005, 4:40:22 PM, Ian wrote: IH> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Chris Lilley wrote: >> >> Getting back to the original point, the minimal quality level that >> satisfies the objection is to make all examples either well formed (if >> they are XML) or (if they are SGML, not XML) valid. Please let me know >> how the CSS WG plans to resolve this comment; your initial response is >> not a satisfactory resolution. IH> Since making HTML examples such as: IH> <H2>hello</H2> IH> ...valid would require significant amounts of extraneous and confusing IH> markup, and since converting all such examples into XML fragments would IH> almost certainly (based on extensive past experiences trying to make such IH> changes) introduce a large number of new unknown errors to the document, wow, really? I'm not sure what you refer to. <h2>hello</h2> would introduce what errors exactly? IH> would you be satisfied if HTML examples in CSS 2.1 were written such that IH> they are extracts of valid documents? Can you point to a definition of 'extract of (a) valid document'? I'm not aware of one. IH> It is my concern that if all the examples were always made fully valid, Note that I did not ask for this, except in the case where fully valid happens to be the minimum quality level. IH> as IH> opposed to being simply extracts from valid examples, the primary intent IH> of the examples would be lost. IH> To give an example of what I am proposing, I would suggest changing IH> 9.2.1.1 from the following: IH> | 9.2.1.1 Anonymous block boxes IH> | IH> | In a document like this: IH> | IH> | <DIV> IH> | Some text IH> | <P>More text IH> | </DIV> IH> ..to: IH> 9.2.1.1 Anonymous block boxes IH> IH> In a fragment like this: IH> IH> <DIV> IH> Some text IH> <P>More text IH> </DIV> IH> Changing the example to be fully valid HTML here would be confusing, IMHO, IH> as it would detract from the point; yes, I agree, but note that making it valid HTML 4.01 is only one possible path. IH> making it XML would run the risk of significant errors being IH> introduced (e.g. forgetting to update the longdesc description of IH> the image). I find this unconvincing. 9.2.1.1 Anonymous block boxes In a fragment like this: <DIV> Some text <P>More text</P> </DIV> the fragment is itself a well formed XML document, thus meeting the minimum quality criteria. As I said earlier, feel free to surpass the minimum (for example making it an XHTML fragment). -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 15:13:15 UTC