W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Proposal: Polyglot validation in degrees - not boolean

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:14:56 +0100
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <20121211211456497723.0171774b@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Henri Sivonen, Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:47:19 +0200:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> And what do the "validation community", especially Henri and Mike,
>> think?
> 
> I have no interest in implementing polyglot checking for Validator.nu.
> One of the reasons why I think there should be no polyglot REC is that
> I don’t want people to ask validator developers to waste time
> developing polyglot checking. (That’s not the primary reason why I’m
> opposed to promoting polyglot. The main reason is that I think it’s
> wrong to lure Web authors into jumping through useless hoops like
> happened with Appendix C.)
> 
> I am still interested in adding an option for flagging implied tags in
> Validator.nu. That seems to be something that authors liked about
> XHTML 1.0-as-text/html validation. Also, I believe it would go a long
> way addressing Sam’s use case of authoring HTML so that it can be
> safely fed to a non-conforming HTML parser.

Well, I am, at any rate, happy to hear that you consider flagging 
implied tags. Also, I have suggested elsewhere that the spec should 
tell the validator to flag lack of use of UTF-8. You seemed positive 
towards that, but Ian was not into that. (But course, the validator 
could warn against things that are allowed by the spec.)
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 20:15:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 December 2012 20:15:26 GMT