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

Re: Support Existing Content

From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 14:03:14 +0100
Message-Id: <F86F00C1-58B2-4EDC-9DBD-8150ACCE4ECC@googlemail.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
To: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>


On 5 May 2007, at 13:43, Gareth Hay wrote:

> On 5 May 2007, at 13:28, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>> Gareth Hay wrote:
>>>> However, another effect of draconian error handling is that a  
>>>> lot fewer people are able to produce content in the language.  
>>>> There are much fewer people in the world that write XML and C  
>>>> than there are people that write HTML. One of the reasons for  
>>>> the success of the internet is the simplicity of producing HTML  
>>>> content.
>>>>
>>>> Javascript was designed with exactly this issue in mind, it  
>>>> should be easy to produce content for. You can also note that  
>>>> javascript has much less draconian error handling than C and  
>>>> that there are a lot more authors of javascript code than C code.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't think this is the case at all. As there would be fewer  
>>> ways to incorrectly do things, and a defined correct way, it will  
>>> be /easier/ to learn.
>>> No more learning conditional comments, no more having to remember  
>>> how to do things in 5 different browsers.
>>
>> Is your main concern that it will be hard to learn to *write*  
>> HTML5 unless we have draconian error handling?
>>
>> If so, you can always use the XML (XHTML) which has draconian  
>> error handling. As a bonus it also has much simpler parsing rules.  
>> And it gives you exactly the same feature set as if you used HTML  
>> syntax for the markup.
>>
>> Does that solve your concern?
>>
> No.
>
> I don't want to keep responding to posters who are clearly trying  
> to turn my argument into something else to fit their argument.

Then what _is_ your argument? That we should only have an XML  
serialisation? That the "class HTML" serialisation should have  
draconian error handling (this goes against one of the in-scope  
deliverables, as it says it should be compatible with "classic HTML"  
parsers of existing browsers)?


On 5 May 2007, at 13:42, Gareth Hay wrote:
>
> On 5 May 2007, at 13:02, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry, but have you actually used these two languages? They  
>> are vastly different. One enforces type safety, the other does  
>> not. One requires that you declare variables, the other does not.  
>> One does memory management for you, the other does not. One  
>> supports objects, the other does not.
>>
>> The only thing that is similar between them is some of the  
>> statment syntax and the fact that they both use {} to declare blocks.
>
> Every day my friend.
> I find it amusing when people make this sort of statement as it is  
> usually them that have never used the two languages to any extent.
> And indeed my statement of similarity was in response to your  
> ridiculous statement

A developer of Gecko doesn't use C or Javascript to any extent? I  
find that hard to believe.



- Geoffrey Sneddon
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2007 13:03:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:44 UTC