W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > June 2011

Re: [VE][html5]

From: Rui del-Negro <w3validator@dvd-hq.info>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:33:54 +0100
To: "Timothy Burgess" <timothy.burgess.87@gmail.com>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vw212s1rjf0k3w@bigbang>
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:40:53 +0100, Timothy Burgess  
> <timothy.burgess.87@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If I write "I'm afraid you're a closed-minded and shortsighted
> nitwit", well... that's just going to make me look like an asshat, but
> it doesn't make you any less of one.
>
> Let me start off by saying that progress is made by breaking rules.

Let me start off by saying that makes very little sense (should we be  
thanking criminals?). I think you probably meant to say that, sometimes,  
progress requires breaking some rules (not that the act of breaking rules  
results in progress). Most progress doesn't require breaking any rules,  
and most rule-breaking does not result in progress (on the contrary, it  
was the creation of those rules that resulted in progress - think  
environmental protection, food hygiene, hardware compatibility standards,  
etc.).

Either way, I don't understand your problem. If you believe that breaking  
rules is something positive, then surely you want the validator to point  
out that you're breaking those rules, so you may feel happy with your  
"progress", no?

> I don't think any further comment is required on that matter.

Absolutely. "Progress is made by breaking rules and no further comment is  
required". Your masterful argumentation will both stump and inspire  
philosophers for centuries to come, possibly forever.

> Whoever created the HTML5 standards should be slapped for deeming
> the center element obsolete, as it works perfectly fine [...]

This is the validator list, not the HTML 5 list. The validator simply  
checks documents against a set of rules, it doesn't create those rules.  
You're free to go post in the HTML lists. I could add "I'm sure they'll  
value your input", but that wouldn't be entirely honest of me.

Or maybe you could create your own DTD and validate your documents against  
that. That way you wouldn't have to deal with those unpleasant situations  
where reality is biased against your opinion.

> encoding these URLs can become costly - not just in terms of speed,
> but actual money required for that extra processing power.

In my personal opinion, propagating your posts is a much bigger waste of  
power and CPU cycles, but technically there's no RFC about it (and it's  
still a negligible amount of power, so I don't really care).

Long words like "consequently" also waste a lot of memory, power and CPU  
cycles. Maybe we should limit everyone to saying "so". Oh my! I've just  
realised why the chinese economy is booming! They can put a whole word in  
a single character! Can you imagine how much power and how many CPU cycles  
that saves them?!

If you think escaping spaces in URLs has a significant impact on power  
consumption and server load, please set up four identical web servers, two  
where all URLs are correctly escaped, and two where they're not (two of  
each so you can eliminate the impact of random power fluctuations).  
Cluster them and compare power consumption over a period of 6 or 12  
months. Then publish your results. I'm sure some subset of mankind will  
thank you, especially if that keeps you busy for a while. Maybe it'll even  
be taken into consideration in future RFCs and future HTML revisions, who  
knows? I wouldn't hold my breath, though.

By the way, /Images/Featured.png, on your website, takes up 34 kB. The  
same image in GIF format would take up 16.5 kB. If you replace it, you'll  
save more bandwidth, power and CPU cycles than all the URL escaping your  
server will have to do in a year. Just my two cents. Literally, that's  
about how much you'll save.

> It's pretty clear you're a follower, not a leader.  And followers who
> insist on sticking to and defending what they've been told as if it's
> some kind of holy mandate only serve to hold back the rest of mankind.

Your reight! I sea tha lite! I shell join you in thu ravolution! Twogether  
we chall phree menkind from the chakle's of stendart's-complience!?!?!?!

Ask yourself: Why are you even posting here? If you're not interested in  
complying with web standards, why are you using a standards-compliance  
checker like the W3C markup validator? Seems like a waste of your time  
(and "mankind's").

RMN
~~~
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 20:34:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 14 June 2011 20:34:36 GMT