On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 14:11:15 GMT, Alexey Ivanov <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Could be… On the other hand, in post XHTML era, the elements are usually in >>> lower-case. Thus we should stick with it and use lowercase HTML elements >>> anyway. >> >> https://www.w3schools.com/html/html_elements.asp >> >>> HTML is Not Case Sensitive >>> >>> HTML tags are not case sensitive: `<P>` means the same as `<p>`. >>> >>> The HTML standard does not require lowercase tags, but W3C recommends >>> lowercase in HTML, and demands lowercase for stricter document types like >>> XHTML. >>> >>> At W3Schools we always use lowercase tag names. >> >> So this is still a recommendation, not a requirement (we don't use XHTML). >> But I agree that this can be helpful for a certain amount of consistency >> across tests(they can still use other tags in uppercase). >> >> >>> Although neither <html> nor <body> are required, I prefer to always add >>> them. These two elements don't add much overhead, do they? >> >> It is a matter of personal taste. >> Normally, I prefer to indent a content of such tags by extra spaces, andThis >> can create additional formatting difficulties under the 80(120) character >> limit per line. >> In those cases, I would prefer to omit those tags. > > I know HTML is *not case sensitive*. It's just HTML tags are always in lower > case in recent years. > >> But I agree that this can be helpful for a certain amount of consistency >> across tests(they can still use other tags in uppercase). > > Yep! In a way, this will enforce `<html>` in lower case, and I hope all other > tags in the instructions. > > > >> > Although neither nor are required, I prefer to always add them. These two >> > elements don't add much overhead, do they? >> >> It is a matter of personal taste. > > Yes, it is… which could create inconsistencies. > >> Normally, I prefer to indent a content of such tags by extra spaces, and >> This can create additional formatting difficulties under the 80(120) >> character limit per line. >> In those cases, I would prefer to omit those tags. > > I don't expect too many nesting levels in instructions. However, I agree it > could be problematic… > > In the sample in #15661, I keep `<html><body>` and the content on the same > level. > > Now that I looked at it again, I realised that I didn't follow the > indentation consistently: first-level `<li>` aren't indented but third-level > `<li>` are. I should correct this. > > Because `<pre>` is used to format pieces of code, I decided not to indent the > first-level `<li>` elements to avoid indentation of the code inside. I don't have a problem with keeping it simple. If some one writing a test doesn't see the HTML interpreted, they'll quickly be able to figure out why. One thing about these and the other enhancements I see is that there's an (increasing) need for a nice bit of documentation in PassFailJFrame itself about all its features. Easiest to do this as you are adding them, so a doc comment block can be started with this one. Probably as a class comment. Suggested text /** * PassFailJFrame documentation * * Instructions for the user can be either plain text or HTML as supported by Swing. * Text beginning with <html\> is presumed to be HTML. */ ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/15660#discussion_r1332006327
