- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 15:27:29 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24605 --- Comment #7 from David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> --- > So you are not satisfied with the robust direction. A _very_ limited amount in that direction is just about acceptable to justify adding few things that go beyond the theoretical minimum needed for XHTML/XML parsing compatibility, but any such additions severely weaken the justification for having this specification, and certainly if this recommendation of using border attribute were added then that would be strong reason for voting _not_ to progress this draft to REC status. There are many toolchains for which it is very convenient (if not absolutely required) to use an xml parser on an "html" document, and for such situations the original polyglot spec was a potentially useful resource. As it is becoming (and would definitely become if the proposed change were made) it is just becoming a personal hodgepodge "best practice" advice completely unrelated to the issue at hand. Reasonable people may disagree on whether table/@border is a good idea, but why should they even be discussing it in the context of XML parser behaviour? If I (reasonably) want a document that parses as xml or html but doesn't have table borders, why put obstacles in the way by introducing these irrelevant constraints on what is or is not considered valid polyglot markup? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 15:27:35 UTC