W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > April 2007

Re: [ANN] Beta test of the W3C Markup Validator (0.8.0 beta 1)

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:41:43 +0900
Message-Id: <CD9A3E5B-BA72-4F25-BBE4-E1A9EC335387@w3.org>
Cc: "www-validator@w3.org Community" <www-validator@w3.org>
To: Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmx.de>

Sierk,

[ not quoting the message you sent to me in private, please resend it  
to the list if you want it seen by others. But please keep the  
discussion on the mailing-list, as much as possible.]

I think you're mixing up issues here.

One is the question of accept headers. On that question I agree in  
principle that the validator could send accept headers - you'll have  
noticed that if you read the thread and bugzilla page. Read, however,  
David's message, who makes an apt *technical* case against it.

The other is the question of (conditionally) serving XHTML 1.1 as  
text/html. The spec says SHOULD NOT. I say "well, if the spec says  
SHOULD NOT, then you should not" and I add that I don't see a good  
reason to do it. The validator issues a warning when you do. That's  
the proper behaviour for a SHOULD NOT.
So... where exactly is the problem?
If you want to do something a spec says you SHOULD NOT do, because  
you think there's a good enough reason, it's your choice. But don't  
come complaining if a conformance checker catches you doing it, and  
issues a warning about it.


Thanks
-- 
olivier
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 14:41:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:24 GMT