W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > July 2004


From: Christian Ottosson <christian@ottosson.name>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:32:30 +0200
Message-Id: <a05100303bd2f0c53a45e@[]>
To: www-html@w3.org

At 12:17 +0000 2004-07-28, Ian Hickson wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>  Surely XHTML specifications need to
>>  define the semantics of valid constructs only.
>That's the mentality that got us into the Tag Soup mess -- by not defining
>what should happen when the author makes a mistake, you end up forcing
>every UA to copy the market leader's error handling.
>Specifications should define what UAs should do in _any_ scenario. The
>CSS, XML, and SVG specs are quite well defined in that regard. The HTML
>specs have traditionally been quite vague in that area.

It has been argued that the UA should bail out and not render an 
invalid document, especially as XHTML is an XML application. Couldn't 
this be the case even when DOM manipulation make the construction 
Christian Ottosson
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2004 17:24:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:08 UTC