My reason is quite a lot simpler than Craig's. I think of <p> as a container tag and not a separator tag, so I never even think of the other way of doing it.
I guess we could do: /** * first * <p/> * second */ and still be XML compliant (assuming an automatic root of some kind), but it would seem just as wrong to me. Hen On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 18:22:42 -0800, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The standard HTML format is *not* the only output format you can get > with Javadocs -- it is quite feasible to render alternative XML-based > formats that can then be transformed using standard XML technologies > -- but that only works if the markup created by Javadocs comments is > well formed. > > In addition, the lack of rigor that HTML requires has always been my > least favorite thing about the web in general -- I wish we'd started > with a culture that requires well formed XML in the first place. Not > having done so has had a *direct* impact on the portability of > documents across browsers, and that impact has been negative overall. > > The same mistake has essentially been made with RSS -- instead of > being disciplined about what they produce, RSS providers have expected > the newsfeed readers to go through incredible contortions to read > invalid feeds. That philosophy is backwards. > > I prefer to set a good example on things like this, rather than > contributing to the problem. > > Craig > > > On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:06:49 +1300, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 2005-02-06 at 17:18 -0800, Craig McClanahan wrote: > > > As should be evident from my own recent practice :-), I'm also +1 on > > > the first (XHTML) approach. > > > > Can I ask those supporters of the XHTML style why they prefer it? > > > > Personally I think it: > > * increases the text size of the source file > > * is harder to write manually (and harder to write correctly) > > * makes the docs in the source file harder to read > > * might be easier for the javadoc app to parse, but that > > makes no difference to us users of javadoc; the javadoc > > tool support for HTML-style isn't going away. > > and > > * has no effect whatsoever on the generated html pages > > > > Not that it's a *huge* deal, but HTML-style just seems a bit better all > > around. Yet quite a few people obviously do prefer XHTML-style. Is it > > just for the "purity"? > > > > Regards, > > > > Simon > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
