W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

(unknown charset) Re: Understanding the "applicable specifications" clause (was: Re: Decentralised extensibility idea (ISSUE-41))

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:50:33 +0100
To: (unknown charset) Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: (unknown charset) Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100120145033451092.7da571d9@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Henri Sivonen, Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:56:30 +0200:
> On Jan 20, 2010, at 13:50, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> 
>> What most people will be interested in is what the W3 Validator 
>> considers valid.
> 
> Indeed, it probably a more relevant consideration for many than what 
> the specs say.

I for one agree with you that a validator should be a 
development/authoring tool. 

However, with the "applicable specification" concept as the only 
extension point, the weight of what the (W3) validator considers valid 
will only increase in importance against the weight of the spec.

One way to make the point that "validation is not all that matters" is 
to make it very simple to validate stuff (= easy to add extensions that 
can be validated with "off the shelf" validators = having technical 
extensions rather than "applicable" extensions.).

If you on purpose want to make it difficult for people to validate 
stuff that is not part of the main spec, then you are not operating 
with a pure development view of what validation is meant for. Instead 
you are mixing in your perception of how (for example) I perceive 
validators/validation.

>> b) if you do go for an 
>> extension, make sure that it can be W3 validated = best thing is to 
>> submit the spec to the W3.
> 
> That probably helps. However, it seems that it's neither necessary 
> (Atom validation is offered)

<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">

I've read the Atom history. But Atom has both a W3 namespace and is 
based on XML. That way it can also be be validated as part of an XHTML 
document, I suppose.

> nor sufficient (XForms validation is not  offered).

It is also a significantly newer recommendation. If it is a conscious 
decision, then it shows that having a technical extension point - 
rather than only the "applicable spec" extension point - does not 
prohibit validators from /not/ offering validation, when "needed". 
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 13:51:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:12 UTC