On Sun, 2006-07-23 at 21:30 -0700, Henri Yandell wrote: > On 7/23/06, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The concept that XML (XHTML in this case) is human readable is highly > > dubious, and has > > become accepted wisdom far too easily. > > Agreed, a .properties file is far more readable but that's not in > question here. Bad HTML is less readable than good HTML because the > eye is used to precompiling what's being typed. > > > The first point is that it isn't 'bad' HTML, its just normal HTML. Every > > HTML tool going has to be > > able to cope with this sort of layout so any tool arguments fail pretty > > quickly. > > I don't agree - it was bad HTML in the mid 90s and it's bad HTML now. > A decade of misuse doesn't make it right. > > > So it comes down to readability, which is much more of a stylistic choice. > > Personally, I strive to > > avoid unecessary clutter, only including unecessary things (eg. additionl > > brackets) if I judge it > > aids understanding. > > +1.
I'm with Stephen here; simple is good. Javadoc isn't expected to be processed by anything other than the javadoc tool, and that handles <p> as a separator fine, so why clutter things with </p>? Javadoc isn't really html. It's a java-specific doc format (like perl POD etc) that happens to resemble html. There are many markup formats that use the "separator" approach rather than the "container" approach. In practice, I think that either is bearable, so new files should follow whatever convention the project already has. Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
