On 3/25/09 5:57 AM, James Graham wrote: > Rob Sayre wrote: >> On 3/25/09 3:30 AM, Doug Schepers wrote: >>> In particular, I was personally disappointed that the request to >>> call out unquoted attributes and case-folding as parse errors was >>> not incorporated; >> >> It's incorrect for the HTML spec to call them parse errors if they >> can be interoperably parsed by HTML parsers. It's not a good use of >> Mozilla's resources to spend time debating interoperable errors. > > On the basis that things labeled parse errors generally lead to > unexpected, albeit interoperable, parsing, they are bad for authors. > It is part of our design principles that we consider the needs of > authors (above implementors, even) as part of the language design. <o:p>Okay... what do they need?</o:p> > If you feel that it is not a good use of your/your employer's time to > debate these points, I guess you can just ignore them. <o:p>In the short term, sure. But the HTML WG is no longer operating on a short timeline.</o:p> >> There is probably a role for a lint tool here, but that requires >> interaction with users more than standards group involvement. > > IMHO such abdication of responsibility would be doing users of the > language a great disservice. <o:p>Maybe you should substantiate your claims. How are these things bad for authors? It seems to me that the web is a great jumble of parse errors that works pretty well.</o:p> - RobReceived on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 10:05:52 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:55:11 GMT