Re: HTML-Info design

[David Kastrup]

Nic Ferrier <address@hidden> writes:

> Lars Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Yuri Khan <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> With explicit closing tags, it is immediately visible where the author
>>> (or their tool) intended the element to end. Modifying the HTML
>>> generation logic only involves ensuring that nesting is not broken.
>>>
>>> With implicit tags, browsers can and will infer tag nesting on their
>>> own, and have an intricate system of rules to do so. Modifying the
>>> logic involves carefully working out where browsers would infer the
>>> missing tags, and then work with that knowledge to ensure that nesting
>>> won’t break.
>>
>> Yeah, that's why all Python code looks like
>>
>>  for x in range(10): # THE LINE ENDED THERE
>>      squares.append(x**2)  # THE FOR ENDS HERE I PROMISE!!!
>>
>> It's then immediately visible where the author intended the lines to
>> end.
>>
>> XHTML was history over five years ago.  It's time you XML fanatics
>> accept that HTML is a different language with different rules and stop
>> this incessant kvetching. 
>
> That's not very helpful either.
>
> It's certainly the case that definite ending is easier to process.

And Lisp code is even easier to process.  But HTML is HTML and XML is
XML and XHTML is XHTML and SGML is SGML.  Whether or not XHTML is easier
to process, web browsers are talking HTML.

-- 
David Kastrup