On 4/17/07, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Henrik Dvergsdal wrote: > > > > As I indicated earlier: There will always be aspects of programming > > languages (and programs) that aren't automatically checked. > > Yes, but we want these aspects to be as few and far between as possible. > We want to encourage an ecosystem where conformance checkers compete over > how many errors they can test for, in the same way that browsers compete > in how many test cases they pass. > > I love the idea of that. Even if there weren't other reasons, that by itself would be enough to convince me no official schema is needed. Obviously working from a DTD alone isn't enough to produce a good browser, so why check only it? And personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with an English-only specification. By defining carefully any words used, English can be just as specific as a machine readable spec, prehaps even more so.Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 09:26:04 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:53 GMT