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

RE: several messages

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 12:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Jonas Sicking'" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: "'Simon Pieters'" <simonp@opera.com>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02e401c9e3b9$1e3f2740$5abd75c0$@edu>
Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> Additionally, I given how easy it is to get unexpected results, I
> >> think we should strongly discourage authors from not escaping
> >> ampersands. And the best tool that we have for doing that is by
making
> >> unescaped ampersands non-conformant.
> >>
> >> / Jonas
> >
> > Good Luck with that Jonas.  They will never use non-conformance* as a
tool
> > to modify author behavior, as they are completely unwilling to attach
> > critical fail to non-conformance, and without that, what other penalty
> > would you propose?  A "tsk tsk" from Henri's validator?  Ouch, that
> > hurts...
>
> Is there a purpose to the above other than just trying to be
> inflammatory? Are you requesting any changes to the spec?
>
> / Jonas

Jonas,

I pose a serious question: what is the real benefit of making unescaped
ampersands non-conformant? (Of making anything "non-conformant"?)   What,
in practical terms, will it achieve - how will it modify author behavior?
I have asked this question numerous times surrounding numerous different
elements and proposals, and the continued response I get is.... <chirping
crickets />

If there is not a significant penalty attached to non-conformant code, why
bother?  I am not trying to be antagonistic here, I truly want to know the
answer.  How does non-conformance "...strongly discourage authors from not
escaping ampersands...", given that the browsers will simply apply error
recovery to the non-conformant code and render as desired, but not author
delivered?

And so, what behavior modification principle is in effect with
"non-conformance"?  You don't get to display a badge on your website that
says "HTML5 Conformant"?  Unless I'm missing something here, that appears
to be it.  Given that the majority of developers today don't bother with
validation or valid code anyway I'm not seeing any real benefit to your
suggestion in the real world that HTML5 is allegedly being written for.
If the browsers are doing error recovery (as opposed to critical fail) why
should the author bother to correct their mistakes - they simply push it
along the line and let somebody else deal with it - in this case the
browser.

And please, with zero sarcasm or antagonism, if I am wrong please point me
to the place in the specification that corrects my impression.

JF
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:34:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:38 GMT