W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Latest thoughts about ISSUE-240 (DTD Validation)

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 03:16:30 +0200
To: "Miguel Garcia" <miguel.garcia@fundacionctic.org>, public-bpwg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.t9r8hsfawxe0ny@widsith.local>

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:17:22 +0200, Miguel Garcia  
<miguel.garcia@fundacionctic.org> wrote:

...[explanation of why...]
> For an outside viewer mobileOK Basic grammar validity requirement could
> look a bit weird.

Sure. The only sensible explanation is that it takes into account what  
works in the real world, rather than trying to require things that don't  
matter in practice, and also takes into account the purpose of the  
grammar, rather than saying "well, anything is as good as anything else".

The easy way to get this right is to do the right thing. But some wrong  
things have no real impact so don't matter. This test is smart enough to  
recognise some of that.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Received on Friday, 18 April 2008 01:17:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:58 UTC