- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:25:07 -0500
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Cc: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html-xml@w3.org
Noah Mendelsohn scripsit: > * Being liberal in what you accept has arguably proven useful on the > Web, but we may offer better value in helping users to be conservative > in what they send. FWIW: I find that XML validation of my (X)HTML > sometimes trips on errors I wouldn't need to fix in practice, but > often it catches errors that would cause a browser to skip significant > content when rendering. So, I find XML validation to be valuable; > maybe or maybe not a good HTML5 validator would meet the need instead. > Anyway, I think we need to think about the right mix of XML and HTML > validation, in cases where users wish to ensure that generated or > hand-authored content is correct. Validation is important, and I'm not arguing against it. What I don't think matters is XML *validity*. There are now many other useful ways to validate documents that are not XML-valid. In particular, the RELAX NG schemas for XHTML 1.0 are available at http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/xhtml , and they could be readily updated for XHTML 1.1. These schemas will confirm that a document is structurally XHTML whether or not it is XML-valid. > * I think that there are misunderstandings about the need to stop on > first error in dealing with XML, and I'm hoping to do a blog post setting > out some thoughts on that. When/if I do, I'll send a link. I agree, and I look forward to seeing that. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan It's the old, old story. Droid meets droid. Droid becomes chameleon. Droid loses chameleon, chameleon becomes blob, droid gets blob back again. It's a classic tale. --Kryten, Red Dwarf
Received on Monday, 20 December 2010 21:25:37 UTC