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

Re: Validity & Must Not/Should Not/May Not

From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:58:36 +0100
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20070715215836.GP5621@stripey.com>

Robert Burns writes:

> On Jul 15, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Smylers wrote:
> > Robert Burns writes:
> > 
> > > On Jul 13, 2007, at 2:18 PM, Smylers wrote:
> > >
> > > > Robert Burns writes
> > > >
> > > > > however even it ifs invalid it can still be may not/ should
> > > > > not / must not.
> > > > 
> > > > Oh, I had't thought of that, sorry.  What things are we
> > > > classifying as invalid yet still only telling authors that they
> > > > "may not" or "should not", rather than "must not"?
> > 
> > Sorry to repeat the question, but I'm still struggling with this and
> > think it would be clearer with an example.  Please can you give an
> > example of something which would be invalid yet not a "must not"
> > item.
> I answered that question.

Thanks.  But I'd still appreciate an example of an element/attribute/
whatever which could meet your definition of being invalid but not a
"must not".

> HTML5 is moving away from simple validation.


For previous versions of HTML the W3C has provided a validator which
gives a 'yes' or 'no' answer -- and in the case of 'yes' provides a logo
authors may display to indicate that their HTML is valid.  Are you
saying that this will not be the case with HTML5?

Na´vely I would have thought it very important to authors that they be
able to tell whether their documents meet the spec.

> Its not about just letting an author know what violated the must not
> and what hasn't fulfilled the must. It should be about all of the
> conformance criteria.  Why take the time to write other conformance
> criteria if we don't want he conformance checker to let the author
> know.

Sure.  But if we have optional criteria, or criteria that we would only
like authors to respect but which we concede they don't absolutely have
to, then a document which doesn't meet those criteria still conforms to
our specification.

> Forget about valid and invalid.

"Valid" or "invalid" are the output states of a validator.  Authors will
continue to use those terms.

It's also a term you used in the sentence I've been struggling with:

  However even it ifs invalid it can still be may not/should not/must

Received on Sunday, 15 July 2007 21:58:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:24 UTC