- 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
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), compression. eventually, we'll have transparent http compression between client and server; tags in a single consistent case compress better than those in mixed case. http://www.mozilla.org/projects/apache/gzip/ 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? l. shouldn't it be written 'xhtml' to get the point across? <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>pgp<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/personal/l.wood/>
Received on Monday, 31 January 2000 09:26:24 UTC