- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:24:33 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Adam Kuehn <akuehn@nc.rr.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, <www-style@w3.org>
On Friday, August 26, 2005, 7:51:31 PM, Ian wrote: IH> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Adam Kuehn wrote: >> >> Ah, I see. I misunderstood your earlier post. Even changing case and >> closing tags you do not regard as a minor change. IH> Indeed, some of the most "minor" of changes have been the most insidious IH> in terms of introducing errors into the spec over the past few years. >> 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? IH> I don't understand why adding "</P>" in that example is good. Its good because it then becomes well formed xml, thus conforming to minimal levels of quality for that particular document language. IH> How is that IH> more "careful"? That end tag is optional in HTML4. The example is not conformant to the HTML 4 specification, nor is it indicated that this is the particular version of the specification that the example is attempting to conform to. IH> All it does is increase IH> the number of nodes in the DOM. That depends on which of the multiple error-correcting parsing modes is used. But feel free to clean up the empty text node if it troubles you. Its rather sad to see this sort of allergic reaction to the mere suggestion of making something be conforming XML, in this day and age; see the related comment about unclear applicability to XML. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 18:24:48 UTC