W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Comparing conformance requirements against real-world docs

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:55:16 +0100
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uokoyepqidj3kv@hp-a0a83fcd39d2>

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:43:35 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

>> 0.0558	Element �frameset� not allowed in this context. (The parent was
>> element �html�.) Suppressing further errors from this subtree.
>> [...]
>
> These are presentational, which I think we are better off leaving as not
> allowed for now. Let's see what happens if we don't have a "transitional"
> analogue for ten years...


>> 0.0194	Element �noframes� not allowed in this context. (The parent was
>> element �html�.) Suppressing further errors from this subtree.
>
> We don't support <noframes> in HTML5, since frame support is required
> (and simultaneously, we make them non-conforming). But I've downplayed
> this error.

I don't see why it's useful to downplay <noframes>...

Since <noframes> presumably only occurs on frameset pages in the real world, the validator output of validating a frameset page with <noframes> in Validator.nu is currently:

   1. Error: Element frameset not allowed as child of element html in this
      context. (Suppressing further errors from this subtree.)

   2. Error: Element noframes not allowed as child of element html in this
      context. (Suppressing further errors from this subtree.)

   3. Error: Required children missing from element html.


Having <noframes> as a "downplayed error" means it would be moved to a separate section, so it would look like this maybe:


   1. Error: Element frameset not allowed as child of element html in this
      context. (Suppressing further errors from this subtree.)

   2. Error: Required children missing from element html.


   *Minor errors*

   These are errors for old legacy features that normally don't have any
   effect and so if you're writing a new document you shouldn't use these
   but if you're upgrading an old document to HTML5 you can probably
   ignore these, but the document still won't be valid HTML5.

   1. Minor error: Element noframes not allowed as child of element html in this
      context. (Suppressing further errors from this subtree.)


...which seems not more useful at all; if one wanted to improve what it has today, it would rather say something like:

   1. Fatal error: Frameset pages are not valid HTML5. You should change
      your site structure to not use framesets or choose the HTML 4.01
      Frameset schema instead.


So in conclusion I'd suggest to remove <noframes> from the list of errors that are "downplayed".

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 13:56:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:28 GMT