W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2007

Re: html5 syntax - why not use xml syntax?

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 10:37:55 -0500
Message-Id: <4A36D31A-04E9-430E-8622-0E099BE8C60A@robburns.com>
Cc: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>, Mynthon Gmail <mynthon1@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
To: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>


On Jul 7, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Philip TAYLOR wrote:

>
>
>
> Robert Burns wrote:
>
>> On Jul 7, 2007, at 6:26 AM, Ben Boyle wrote:
>
>>> I have noticed the W3C HTML validator is confused by <link ... />  
>>> and
>>> <meta ... /> empty tags, but had assumed it to be a valiator bug.
>> I would agree: validator bug.
>
> No bug (this needs to be said very clearly).  The validator
> compares the document [1] with the DTD specified in the DOCTYPE
> directive, and finds bare character data.  It goes on to
> explain :
>
> 	> Mistakes that can cause this error
> 	> include putting text directly in the
> 	> body of the document
>
> and that is effectively what the author has done, since
> the "/" closed the <link> tag and the following ">"
> closed the <head> element.  Note that the diagnostic
> is effectively identical to that produced by the very
> example that the validator cites [2].

I understand. So call it a DTD bug. Or make a HTML 4.02 (or a  
4.01/1.0C) DTD and allow authors to use that. A new DTD could  
explicitly prohibit NETs. The point is that if someone actually  
wanted to use null end-tag terminators, those would work in  
approximately 0% of non-validator HTML processing applications at  
best. To me that's a bug in the validation process (even if not in  
the validation code itself).

Take care,
Rob
Received on Saturday, 7 July 2007 15:38:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:02 GMT