W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Element Whitelisting

From: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 06:05:10 -0400
Message-ID: <49CA01D6.3010300@mozilla.com>
To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
CC: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
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>

- Rob
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 10:05:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:41 GMT