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

Re: [VE][html5]

From: Rui del-Negro <w3validator@dvd-hq.info>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:20:26 +0100
To: "Timothy Burgess" <timothy.burgess.87@gmail.com>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vw29scq0jf0k3w@bigbang>
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:13:15 +0100, Timothy Burgess  
> <timothy.burgess.87@gmail.com> wrote:
> How are those panties doing?  All nice and bunched up?I don't have time  
> to argue semantics [...] Going off on
> a tangent trying to pick apart a single sentence when
> you knew exactly what I meant [...]

A validator's mailing list is not a good place to meet people who don't  
care about semantics.

> just shows how far you're reaching to try
> to defend yourself. It's quite laughable.

Why would I need to "defend myself"...? I know what a validator is, what  
it does, and what it's meant to be used for. Apparently you think the  
validator's job is to "validate" your opinions, even when they don't agree  
with web standards. It isn't. The two error messages you got were correct  
(and so are the other messages your site gets). Not only that, but the  
validator even told you how to fix those errors. I don't understand what  
more you want or expect a markup validator to do.

Don't like HTML 5? Pick a different version. Or contact the HTML 5 working  
group and suggest changes. Or create your own standard. The validator  
actually supports that.

Going on and on about how "shortsighted" everyone is, how the people  
responsible for HTML 5 "should be slapped" because they "don't think  
things through" and are "holding back mankind" isn't really going to  
change the fact that your pages have conformance errors and that the  
validator (correctly) reported them. Besides, as pointed out, this mailing  
list is about a tool (the validator), not about the standards themselves.

> your reasoning and explanation regarding the cost of the extra
> clock cycles is extremely flawed, and proves exactly how incredibly
> shortsighted you are.  I'll give you a hint: power consumption
> accounts for <%1 of costs in this case.  It's more about the
> responsiveness of the server.

Then, by all means, include responsiveness data in your study. Or quote  
some existing study (based on data from a real website) that proves your  
point. Surely, if you're making such a big deal out of this ("holding back  
mankind", no less!), you must have objective evidence from a real-world  
case, right? How many millions of requests per second does your website  
process, exactly, and what percentage of its CPU cycles is spent dealing  
with URL escaping?

Google's servers process more URLs (and more URLs-per-MB-served) than  
anyone else's, and HTML 5's editor (Ian Hickson) is actually a Google  
employee. I feel reasonably confident that he has access to data about the  
impact of URL escaping on server performance, and clearly didn't consider  
it relevant enough to propose getting rid of it.

Apparently you think that only proves how "shortsighted" and "laughable"  
he is and how he's "holding back mankind". So, by all means, feel free to  
tell him that. His e-mail is ian@hixie.ch. If you prefer to school a whole  
bunch of shortsighted laughable mankind-holder-backers in a single blow,  
you can go here instead:


> I don't have time to list the vast wave of implications involved

Oh, the children will be so disappointed.

> Your shortsightedness is astounding!

Is that your word of the day?

P.S. - Adding your e-mail address to my spam filter.

Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 23:20:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 November 2015 11:01:37 UTC