HTML5: HTML VS XHTML spec question regarding comments

views:

103

answers:

+1 Q:

HTML5: HTML VS XHTML spec question regarding comments

In the W3C working draft for HTML5 here's a line I find confusing:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/introduction.html#html-vs-xhtml

Comments that contain the string "-->" can be represented in the DOM but not in the HTML syntax or in XML.

I can interpret this in two different ways:

Comments that contain the string "-->" can be represented in XML and in the DOM but not in the HTML syntax
Comments that contain the string"-->" can be represented in the DOM but neither in the HTML syntax nor in XML.

I really find the original formulation highly confusing. Which one does it mean and is it even correct english?

Who should I contact if I want to point out that I find such a wording highly confusing and that hence there's a high probability that other non-native english speaker would find this kind of formulation highly confusing too?

+2 A:

It means that a comment containing "-->" can be created in the DOM (via e.g. Javascript), but that it cannot be created in either XML or HTML.

This is due to parsing issues that the DOM does not have to deal with.

Edit: And yes, it's "correct" English, with no ambiguity, at least in my opinion. Had it meant your first interpretation, it would likely have been written as "Comments that contain the string '-->' can be represented in the DOM and in XML, but not in the HTML syntax."

Randolpho 2010-06-03 19:51:53

+1 A:

You can contact the W3C here:

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/contact

Simon Brown 2010-06-03 19:54:28

+3 A:

I think that it means:

DOM: yes
HTML: no
XML: no

As a native English speaker (but not a lawyer who is used to looking for ambiguity) I don't find it ambiguous (I think I know what it means).

It would be clearer with an extra comma and maybe a 'nor':

... can be represented in the DOM, but not in the HTML syntax nor in XML.

ChrisW 2010-06-03 19:55:31

+1 to all... I think my issue is that some construct are "less obvious" to non-native English speakers (even if my native language has similar constructs): it's like the "double negation", this is typically something causing trouble to non-native speakers :)

NoozNooz42 2010-06-03 20:31:07

@NoozNooz42 It's non-ambigous to me because of its position within the sentence: when I read it I 'hear' and implicitly supply the missing comma, which groups the XML and HTML into the same category.

ChrisW 2010-06-03 20:47:45

+2 A:

Your second interpretation is correct. You can email your comment to the W3C HTML Working Group at [email protected], they'll take it from there. They've confused me in the past and since reworded sections.

Lee Kowalkowski 2010-06-03 20:03:46

Due to the very low signal:noise ratio on <[email protected]>, the editor usually doesn't change the specification based on feedback there. He does, however, guarantee that he'll consider all feedback sent to <[email protected]> and all bugs filed at <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public> (or through the textbox at the bottom of the window in the WHATWG specification, <http://www.whatwg.org/html>).

Ms2ger 2010-06-04 10:41:24

Thanks ms2ger, whoever you are. I was in two minds which to suggest, but as a member of the W3C HTML WG, I thought it proper to suggest that one, but I know exactly what you mean about the signal:noise ratio. The editor seems to get a little stick sometimes for making changes that haven't been discussed or raised at W3C, despite doing an 'impossible' job.

Lee Kowalkowski 2010-06-04 19:45:42

+1 A:

Fixed.

http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete/introduction.html#html-vs-xhtml

Ian Hickson 2010-08-27 00:39:30

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

HTML5: HTML VS XHTML spec question regarding comments

related questions