W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2008

Re: validity and other important things

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:43:32 +0200
To: "Dave Singer" <singer@apple.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t9lmuuwtwxe0ny@widsith.local>

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:34:42 +0200, Dave Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

> At 7:57  -0400 11/04/08, David Poehlman wrote:
>> It's a reasonable approach but I'm not sure it should be designed into  
>> spec.
>
> and as a point of principal here, it seems kinda backward.  On questions  
> of validity, we would surely want the output of *automated* HTML  
> production to be 100% valid, yet in some sense allow people to exercise  
> their judgment.

Sure. It is reasonable to want everything, but it is not generally likely  
to happen that we get everything we want. In which case we go about  
engineering a solution that provides the optimal available outcome.

In that context, validity is not a holy grail - we first have to have some  
understanding of what the purpose of validity is, beyond some feel-good  
factor for developers.

[rest is reasonable stuff snipped because it has been repeated in other  
threads on this subject]

cheers


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 11:44:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:14 GMT