W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > January 2000

Re: Validator errors

From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 14:26:07 +0000 (GMT)
To: Bless Terje <link@rito.no>
cc: "'Vidiot'" <brown@mrvideo.vidiot.com>, www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10001311335200.26191-100000@petra.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Bless Terje wrote:
> idiot wrote:
> >Why the hell not?  Excuse me for saying so, but I think it is stupid to
> >force case on elements.  A lot of people, me included, hand 
> >write HTML code.
> >I personally prefer to have all elements in caps, including tags and
> >attributes.  But, many do not.  I've seen lots of mixed case 
> >HTML documents.
> >To force same-case tags is stupid and unenforceable.
> Well, I happen to agree with you about Case Sensitivity, but, unfortunately,
> for XML Applications (such as XHTML 1.0) that is the way it is. If I'd had
> any say in the matter I would probably have fought this desition (as I've
> seen no sane argment in favour of it),


eventually, we'll have transparent http compression between client and
server; tags in a single consistent case compress better than those in
mixed case.


for example.

> >Huh?  Why?  Obviously BASE has worked for years in HTML 
> >without a closing tag.  Why should it now be required?
> >The word dumb comes to mind again. According to your statement,
> >even <BR> would require a </BR>, which is really stupid.

many people have made the same argument with <p> and </p>

> Consider this: what logic do you apply to decide which elements require a
> closing tag and which do not? Isn't more logical to require all of them to?

whither </>, the general closing tag?

shouldn't it be written 'xhtml' to get the point across?

Received on Monday, 31 January 2000 09:26:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:58:15 UTC