- From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:38:09 -0500
- To: css21testsuite@gtalbot.org
- Cc: CSS-testsuite <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
2012/2/16 "GĂ©rard Talbot" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>: > I disagree with you. Okay. > XHTML tests are not served as text/html in the test suite. Correct. This just means that you're using a different code path from virtually every web page, which is undesirable in a test suite. Tests should be text/html because web pages are all text/html, for practical purposes. > XHTML insures well-formedness. This begs the question. Why do we want well-formedness? HTML parsing has been well-defined for several years now. > What's so difficult in using a HTML document template anyway? Most text > editors can be customized to start with a HTML document template. It's harder to read. As in, several times as long, with most of the markup being boilerplate that serves no purpose. It's processed exactly the same by all browsers, and the relevant standards guarantee that. The HTML5 version of the same file is two lines long and contains nothing except the actual style information relevant to the test, except the doctype. > The whole thing sends a wrong message to web authors out there that web > standards are not important to follow, web standards bring no benefits, > are useless anyway, pointless, etc.. Web authors could now look at the > tests and say: "Look, even W3C in the test suites does not follow the > web standards it creates." HTML5 is a W3C-hosted specification, and the test file I gave is valid HTML5 (except that it's missing a <title>, okay). XHTML 1.0 is a specification that's more than a decade old, is exceptionally vague in specifying everything except syntax, and isn't actually used on a nontrivial number of real-world websites (given that pages served as text/html are actually processed by browsers as HTML5 regardless of doctype). Using it in preference to HTML5 sends the message that the W3C cares more about theoretical purity than about actual browser interoperability. Which, unfortunately, seems to be true.
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 18:39:21 UTC