- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:06:31 -0500
- To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Cc: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html-xml@w3.org
On 12/20/2010 4:25 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Noah Mendelsohn scripsit: > >> > * Being liberal in what you accept has arguably proven useful on the >> > Web, but we may offer better value in helping users to be conservative >> > in what they send. FWIW: I find that XML validation of my (X)HTML >> > sometimes trips on errors I wouldn't need to fix in practice, but >> > often it catches errors that would cause a browser to skip significant >> > content when rendering. So, I find XML validation to be valuable; >> > maybe or maybe not a good HTML5 validator would meet the need instead. >> > Anyway, I think we need to think about the right mix of XML and HTML >> > validation, in cases where users wish to ensure that generated or >> > hand-authored content is correct. > Validation is important, and I'm not arguing against it. What I don't > think matters is XML*validity*. There are now many other useful ways > to validate documents that are not XML-valid. Good catch. I said XML validation. I mostly meant well-formedness checking. I didn't mean to suggest one way or the other whether schema-level validation might also be useful, and if so, using what schema languages. Noah
Received on Wednesday, 22 December 2010 19:34:19 UTC