Re: Last call: Intro, SGML, MIME sections
Greg Kostello (Greg_Kostello@pages.com)
Thu, 4 May 95 14:03:02 EDT
At 12:44 PM 5/4/95 EDT, Dan Connolly wrote:
>lilley@afs.mcc.ac.uk writes:
> >
> > > Hence the terminals above parse as:
> >
> > > HTML
> > > |
> > > \-HEAD, BODY
> > > | |
> > > \-TITLE \-P
> > > | |
> > > | \-<P>,"Some text. ",EM
> > > | |
> > > | \-<EM>,"*wow*",</EM>
> > > \-<TITLE>,"Parsing Example",</TITLE>
> >
> > Given certain historical problems with P, I would be happier if the
> > first occurence of P in an example in the standard showed a closing P tag
> > somewhere.
>
>I think you would be in the minority. </P> tends to send many folks
>into a fit of rage, whereas the lack of </P> doesn't bother the folks
>who grok P as a container. This is completely arbitrary, as far as I'm
>concerned. Any other opinions?
>
>
I'm probably in the same minority, but I thought I should voice my opinion
as well.
While I understand the reasoning behind why the </P> is optional, I think
that novices to HTML are typically confused and view <P> as a separator i.e.
they equate it with an "end of line" character and not as a beginning tag.
By using the <P></P> paring, a paragraph becomes no different than any other
element, and the ambiguity goes away.
Greg
---------------------------------------
Greg Kostello
Pages Software Inc
http://www.pages.com/
Mime Mail Accepted