- From: Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>
- Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:37:51 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
2010-03-28 19:16, Sam Ruby skrev: > Lars, with your teaching hat on, would you agree that it would be a good > thing for your students and colleagues to explicitly close all open, > non-void elements? For pedagogic reasons, yes I do. It makes for a conceptually easier mapping between markup and the DOM and it helps catch unintended errors. The one main drawback is the white space nodes between end tags and the next start tag, that makes walking the dom a bit harder. However, they should not be taught to rely on solutions that only work when such redundant nodes are missing. > My preference is that we agree that what is served as a representation > of the resource named by http://google.com/ conforms to the definition > of HTML5. We can further agree that it is not a particularly good > example to learn from, but that it is HTML5 nevertheless, and it is > appropriate to be served as text/html. Uhm, yes I think it should be served as text/html. (I never intended to question that.) I do not think the validator should say it's A-OK, though. > Separately, I believe that we should develop one or more sets of best > practices. At least one of those best practices should be targeted > specifically at the need of students. > > I have no problem with the W3C deploying a "goodness checker" and am > even willing to help code it. It's good to know that this idea has not died. When we have gotten OWEA off the ground I think it could be something for us to give some consideration. (My idea, I have not discussed this with my fellow OWEAns.) However, I do not think that a pedagogic profile for the validator would absolve us from having reasonable conformance rules for normal validation as well. -- Lars Gunther http://keryx.se/ http://twitter.com/itpastorn/ http://itpastorn.blogspot.com/
Received on Sunday, 28 March 2010 17:38:20 UTC