W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > January 2000

Re: Validator errors

From: Bless Terje <link@rito.no>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 16:38:39 +0100
Message-ID: <22FD5BD2DBC5D211BE0D0008C7A4E87FD9B418@odin4.rito.no>
To: "'L.Wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk'" <L.Wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
[ Sorry about the format of this message. I'm stuck using MS Outlook at
work. ]

Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Bless Terje wrote:
>>Well, I happen to agree with you about Case Sensitivity, 
>>but, unfortunately, for XML Applications (such as XHTML 1.0)
>>that is the way it is. If I'd had any say in the matter I
>>would probably have fought this desition (as I've
>>seen no sane argment in favour of it),
>eventually, we'll have transparent http compression between client and
>server; tags in a single consistent case compress better than those in
>mixed case.

That is, at best, a weak argument.

Given that even with current round-peg-in-square-hole attempts at HTTP
compression case difference has negligable impact on compression
efficiency -- due to the ratio of markup to data and the tendency of
authors and authoring tools to be internally consistent -- and that
any specialized HTTP compression scheme should contain optimizations
for the kind of data that is likely to occur, one can conclude that
the impact of mixed case markup will, for all practical purposes,
be exactly nil.

>whither </>, the general closing tag?

Don't follow...?

>shouldn't it be written 'xhtml' to get the point across?

No. IMO it should be hidden away in some obscure corner until
XHTML 2.0 is ready and is renamed to something that does not contain
the letters H, T, M or L. But that is a different story and I don't
think we should go into that particular issue here.

Water under the bridge, spilled milk, and all that... :-(
Received on Monday, 31 January 2000 10:39:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:26 UTC