- From: Roger Johansson <roger@456bereastreet.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 09:27:59 +0200
- 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 UTC