HTML code in the spec has bad quality

[domel]

The specification inherits a significant amount of low-quality HTML code from older versions (1.0, 1.1). Some of the issues observed include:

• Tables used in a non-semantic way
• Missing essential HTML elements
• Redundant HTML tags
• Additional miscellaneous issues

Improving the HTML quality will enhance readability, maintainability, and overall compliance with modern standards.

[pfps]

@domel has this been resolved?

[domel]

Not at all.

[pfps]

What issues remain?

[domel]

• Tables are used in a non-semantic way and lack proper structure.
• Missing essential HTML elements affect correct document rendering.
• Redundant HTML tags increase code complexity and should be removed.
• Outdated meta tags need replacement with modern equivalents.
• Improper section nesting may cause rendering issues and errors.
• Duplicated or inconsistent element IDs can create potential conflicts.
• Excessive section nesting reduces both readability and accessibility.
• Inline elements inside paragraphs do not follow semantic HTML practices.
• Some tables have incorrect structures, including nested paragraphs.
• Missing table elements, such as headers and captions, reduce clarity.
• Table data cells are incorrectly used instead of proper header elements.
• Inline styles should be replaced with external CSS for better structure.
• Lack of use of semantic elements in mathematical formulas.

[pfps]

Do any of these affect the readability of the document?

[domel]

Yes, some subissues effect for humans and some for machines (that is also indirectly to human eg. people with disabilities).

[pfps]

Please provide examples.

[domel]

<meta http-equiv='Content-Type' content='text/html;charset=utf-8'/>

  <table id="RDFS_axiomatic_triples">
    <caption>RDFS axiomatic triples.</caption>
    <tr>
      <td class="ruletable"> <code>rdf:type rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource .<br/>
        rdfs:domain rdfs:domain rdf:Property .<br/>
        rdfs:range rdfs:domain rdf:Property .<br/>
        rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:domain rdf:Property .<br/>
        rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:domain rdfs:Class .<br/>
        rdf:subject rdfs:domain rdf:Statement .<br/>
        rdf:predicate rdfs:domain rdf:Statement .<br/>
        rdf:object rdfs:domain rdf:Statement .<br/>
        rdfs:member rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource . <br/>
        rdf:first rdfs:domain rdf:List .<br/>
        rdf:rest rdfs:domain rdf:List .<br/>
        rdfs:seeAlso rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource .<br/>
        rdfs:isDefinedBy rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource .<br/>
        rdfs:comment rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource .<br/>
        rdfs:label rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource .<br/>
        rdf:value rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource .<br/>
        <br/>
        rdf:type rdfs:range rdfs:Class .<br/>
        rdfs:domain rdfs:range rdfs:Class .<br/>
        rdfs:range rdfs:range rdfs:Class .<br/>
        rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:range rdf:Property .<br/>
        rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:range rdfs:Class .<br/>
        rdf:subject rdfs:range rdfs:Resource .<br/>
        rdf:predicate rdfs:range rdfs:Resource .<br/>
        rdf:object rdfs:range rdfs:Resource .<br/>
        rdfs:member rdfs:range rdfs:Resource .<br/>
        rdf:first rdfs:range rdfs:Resource .<br/>
        rdf:rest rdfs:range rdf:List .<br/>
        rdfs:seeAlso rdfs:range rdfs:Resource .<br/>
        rdfs:isDefinedBy rdfs:range rdfs:Resource .<br/>
        rdfs:comment rdfs:range rdfs:Literal .<br/>
        rdfs:label rdfs:range rdfs:Literal .<br/>
        rdf:value rdfs:range rdfs:Resource .<br/>
        <br/>
        rdf:Alt rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Container .<br/>
        rdf:Bag rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Container .<br/>
        rdf:Seq rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Container .<br/>
        rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property .<br/>
        <br/>
        rdfs:isDefinedBy rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:seeAlso .<br/>
        <br/>

        rdf:reifies rdfs:range rdfs:Proposition .<br/>
        <br/>
        
        rdfs:Datatype rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class .<br/>
        <br/>
        rdf:_1 rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty .<br/>
        <span >rdf:_1 rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource .<br/>
        rdf:_1 rdfs:range rdfs:Resource .</span> <br/>
        rdf:_2 rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty .<br/>
        rdf:_2 rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource .<br/>
        rdf:_2 rdfs:range rdfs:Resource . <br/>
        </code>... <br/> 
        </td>
    </tr>
  </table>

        For example, RDF statements of the form <br/><br/>
        <code>ex:a rdfs:subClassOf "Thing"^^xsd:string .</code><br/><br/>
        are prohibited in the OWL <a>semantic extension</a> based on description logics [[?OWL2-SYNTAX]].

<p>Any process which constructs a graph E from
      some other graph S is (simply) <dfn>valid</dfn> if S

      <p><img src="RDF12SemanticsDiagrams/example5.svg" alt="Overlapping Graphs" style="max-width: 100%"></p> 

<img src="RDF12SemanticsDiagrams/example1.svg" alt="Graph 1" />

A triple <b><i>appears in</i></b> a graph G

<p/>

[domel]

I would be grateful if you could remove the propose closing label.

[TallTed]

@domel — It would be helpful to me, and probably to others, if you could break this into one issue per concern, as listed in #51 (comment).

I would ask that you include in each such issue the explicit codeblock(s) (and/or links to same) as seen in #51 (comment).

This would make it more possible to understand your concerns, and thus to respond to them, whether by PR or otherwise.

As it stands, I don't understand your complaint about, for instance, <p/>, which is (so far as I can see) just a unnecessary / in a possibly unnecessary (but possibly helpful in adding vertical whitespace where it occurs) <p>.

Indeed, you could skip ahead, and submit PRs for each of the concerns you've loosely identified above, which PRs should make the resolution you desire clear to the rest of us.

[domel]

As it stands, I don't understand your complaint about, for instance, <p/>, which is (so far as I can see) just a unnecessary / in a possibly unnecessary (but possibly helpful in adding vertical whitespace where it occurs) <p>.

No, in HTML, there is no <p/>, there is <p></p>. It is also possible to use <p> then the end tag may be omitted if the p element is immediately followed by an address, article, aside, blockquote, details, div, dl, fieldset, figcaption, figure, footer, form, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, header, hgroup, hr, main, menu, nav, ol, pre, search, section, table, ul or another p element, or if there is no more content in the parent element and the parent element is not an a, audio, del, ins, map, noscript or video element, or an autonomous custom element. If one wants to achieve greater vertical spacing from this is CSS not HTML. HTML defines the structure and content of a webpage, while CSS controls its presentation and styling.

Indeed, you could skip ahead, and submit PRs for each of the concerns you've loosely identified above, which PRs should make the resolution you desire clear to the rest of us.

No chance, sorry. I have had too many negative experiences working with a few people here in this context.

[TallTed]

No, in HTML, there is no <p/>

Wow... That's the sort of thing I usually catch.

Digging into the document, I found one <p/> was a typo for </p>. Easy fix. PR #88 in progress.

The other (there were only two instances) is a pure orphan, but it separates two tables in the source HTML. I'm betting these get blurred together without such separator. I'll find out in a minute, when I preview my PR in progress.

... Confirmed. It's a separator between two tables. I've now changed the markup from <p/> to <p></p> which I'm sure is imperfect, but it does the necessary job (scroll up a bit from this anchor) for the moment.