W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > October 2011

[Bug 13201] Flow content should be allowed in <dt>

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 15:33:59 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RAO3D-0003fy-2R@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13201

--- Comment #16 from Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com <mtanalin@yandex.ru> 2011-10-02 15:33:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)

> Just because we can't catch every mistake doesn't mean we shouldn't catch the
> ones we _can_ catch.

Ones we can catch _directly_ and _unambiguous_. DT/DD content-type difference
is not a such case.

> It is entirely the validator's responsibility. It's in fact the only point in
> _having_ a validator. Validators have no role other than helping authors catch
> their mistakes. That's why we have them.

Validator is primarily to catch syntax errors (nonclosed tags, missing closing
quote for attribute, unknown or nonclosed entity, etc.). Validator cannot
exactly know semantic intentions of an author. Validator having AI is currently
purely fantastic thing, you know that. ;-)

> The only reason they can't catch
> everything is due to technical limitations. Once we have computers with AI and
> telepathy, these mistakes will also be caught. :-)

You have answered yourself to the question. At the present time, validator
cannot detect wrong using of elements that syntactically can contain same
content. And the fact of current purely-formal restriction for allowed DT
content is purely _indirect_ indicator for validator, and therefore this cannot
be a serious reason to ignore real-world needs.

> > The fact that formerly you could use validator to detect DT/DD swapping is not
> > more than just _side_ effect of current impractical spec definition.
> 
> It's more than a side-effect, it's the reason for having the definition.

Sounds ambiguous and unclear for me.

> Note that I haven't rejected this bug (if I had it would be marked WONTFIX). In
> fact, quite the opposite, I've marked it "ASSIGNED", indicating that I do
> intend to make a change. See comment 11 for the change I am contemplating. That
> change would have the unfortunate side-effect of no longer catching the
> mistakes I've mentioned in this bug.

Ok. Your continuous doubts are just slightly confusing as for your intentions.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 2 October 2011 15:34:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:02:05 UTC