W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > November 2013

Re: ID/Class Names beginning with numbers

From: Philip Taylor <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:05:06 +0000
Message-ID: <52965072.4040802@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
CC: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> 2013-11-27 21:40, Philip Taylor wrote:

>> one reason for inserting the chosen DOCTYPE
>> is to inform anyone considering validating the page that they
>> should not seek to override it in the user interface other than
>> for reasons of pure intellectual curiousity.
> Why would an author of a page care the least of what other people do if
> they decide to use a validator on the page?

Because it provide a 100% rebuttal against allegations such
as "Your page does not display correctly in XXXXX, and when
I validated it as HTML5, the validator told me it contains
nnn errors.  Can you please fix them as soon as possible,
as I need to access that page".  (Assuming that the page
was actually valid HTML 4.01 Strict, and displayed correctly
in all mainstream browsers other than XXXXX).

> The Web would be a better place without this doctype nonsense. 

Let us agree to differ there.

> I used to be passionate about keeping words like "valid", "validator",
> and "validity" in their technical SGML (or XML) sense, when discussing
> HTML documents. But this seems to be a lost cause. HTML5 uses the word
> "valid" freely and loosely, and I don't really blame them. Yet, now we
> have the situation that there is no objective way of deciding whether a
> document is valid or not (in the HTML5 sense); "valid" becomes a loose
> word like "good" or "OK".

Quite.  But I don't think either of us wants to debate the rights and
wrongs of HTML5's redefinition of the word "valid", so I will stop here.

Philip Taylor
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2013 20:05:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:26 UTC