- 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