- From: Adam Kuehn <akuehn@nc.rr.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 12:51:25 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-style@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: >Well, taking the example in 9.1.2 for instance, if that were changed from >uppercase to lowercase it would require the following to change: the tag >names in the following paragraph, the image, the longdesc, the tag names >in the paragraph after the image, _and the tag names in paragraph after >the following example_. Assuming I haven't missed anything. It is WAY too >easy to start missing things like this. Ah, I see. I misunderstood your earlier post. Even changing case and closing tags you do not regard as a minor change. > >> <P>More text >> >> <P>More text</P> > >Apart from neophillic adherence to fashionable syntaxes, what does this >achieve? It doesn't in any way clarify anything, and indeed actually adds >a text node to the example (which in this case is quite important as it >affects the reason for the rendering to be as it is). Here I think is where the fundamental disagreement lies. Rather than "neophilic adherence to fashionable syntaxes", I think most would phrase it as "advocating careful coding practices". But if the majority of the WG feels that the risks outweigh any benefit, then it doesn't much matter which spin one puts on it, does it? I'll butt out now. -- -Adam Kuehn
Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 16:53:27 UTC