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

Re: Support Existing Content

From: Roger Johansson <roger@456bereastreet.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 09:27:59 +0200
Message-Id: <A1D71B2E-074A-4DE4-B75A-7E424D74A1E3@456bereastreet.com>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>


On 1 maj 2007, at 02.13, David Hyatt wrote:

> A spec could include elements that are considered poor practice and  
> label them as such, and conformance checkers could be designed to  
> help encourage authors to reach the highest level of conformance  
> possible (thus avoiding these poor practice elements).

I think that is necessary if HTML 5 is to gain any popularity among  
Web standards-aware developers such as myself.

Much of the current discussion could be avoided if the spec clearly  
said something to the extent of "Browsers must implement and render  
junk markup interoperably, but authors (Web designers, developers,  
writers, CMS tools, WYSIWYG tools, etc.) must not use any of these  
deprecated elements and attributes."

Basically a clear distinction between what browsers have to accept  
(all HTML that has ever been created) and what authors are allowed to  
use (semantic, accessible, non-presentational HTML).

Apologies if that is already in the HTML 5 WD. I have not had time to  
read every word of it.

Something that is bugging me (and I think others as well) is the  
apparent fear browser vendors have of doing anything to encourage  
people to create better (valid, well-formed, accessible, semantic)  
markup.

Obviously you can't display a modal dialog for each HTML error. But  
most browsers have an error console that logs JavaScript errors and  
warnings. Firefox lists CSS properties it doesn't recognise there as  
well. Why not also list HTML errors in the error console?

/Roger

--
http://www.456bereastreet.com/
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 07:28:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:58 GMT