> It's also a bit strange to argue about "easier to write manually" in this day and age of Markdown, HAML, etc.
But, by that logic, isn't it also strange to argue about making HTML's syntax more consistent if we should be using Markdown/HAML/etc to generate it anyway?
BTW, i do agree with you in that having a more consistent syntax is better than having a syntax that aims to save a few keystrokes at the expense of adding special rules. As a user, i find it more difficult to have to remember which cases are special than to read or write a more consistent syntax. I just don't see how your comment on Markdown/HAML helps the case for a simpler HTML syntax ;)
There is nowadays less need for writing HTML by hand. HTML is more often generated from other formats and things like Markdown, HAML, and other lightweight markup languages helped in that.
But in the end the output is HTML and having a consistent syntax makes it easier to generate, read, and debug it.
Its syntax doesn't need to be dumbed down for casual users because casual users have other options. In that sense I think my comment is in support for a better HTML syntax. :)
But, by that logic, isn't it also strange to argue about making HTML's syntax more consistent if we should be using Markdown/HAML/etc to generate it anyway?
BTW, i do agree with you in that having a more consistent syntax is better than having a syntax that aims to save a few keystrokes at the expense of adding special rules. As a user, i find it more difficult to have to remember which cases are special than to read or write a more consistent syntax. I just don't see how your comment on Markdown/HAML helps the case for a simpler HTML syntax ;)