- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 03:50:08 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>, matt@builtfromsource.com, public-html@w3.org
On May 4, 2007, at 3:24 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> ... >> OK, but what's the actual harm of doing so? Can you describe it in >> words? You've said repeatedly that you think nonconforming content >> is really bad, but you haven't once explained how its existence >> hurts anyone, or how wiping it out would help anyone. >> ... > > It hurts those who want to parse HTML, but do not want to implement > a full user agent (think metadata extraction, microformats, > crawling, indexing...). Given that nonconforming content already exists, is this harm best addressed by defining how to parse it, by requiring all implementations to abort when they see it (as proposed by the poster I was replying to), or by leaving things undefined? > Now I understand that what's the well-defined HTML5 parsing is > for... So this sort of proves to me that the distinction between > "conformant" and "parseable" documents really is meaningless. It might be meaningless to a browser or web crawler, but it wouldn't be to an editor or conformance checker. Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 10:50:12 UTC