- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:10:01 -0500
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: public-html-xml@w3.org
On 01/10/2011 04:50 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Jan 7, 2011, at 19:38, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> it is doable, but it is a fair amount of work, and will break an >> unknown number of things, many of which we will only find out about >> after a release is made and it gets in the hand of real users. > > That looks a lot like the usual rationale for not changing something > that someone perceives to be broken about browsers / the Web > platform. :-) > >> Part of the appeal of the feedparser to date is that it is a single >> source file that has virtually no hard dependencies. This is >> something that would radically be changed by creating a hard >> dependency on html5lib. > > Sadly, it seems that "standard" libraries are always behind the times > and if you want correct code, you need to import more fresh > non-"standard" libraries. The dependencies then do become a problem. > One solution is that libraries use more correct other libraries when > they are available. That is, feedparser could use html5lib if > available. (This can cause confusion, though. Everything has > downsides.) > >> Over time undoubtedly the parsers will improve and html5 will >> become a part of the standard libraries for many programming >> langauges, but the fact remains that at the present time very >> little is available to people who write scripts that compares to >> xsltproc and libxml2. > > So we both agree that the problem is temporary but we disagree on how > to react to the temporary state of affairs while it lasts? (My > reaction is that things will get better soon enough, so it doesn't > make sense to design elaborate interim solutions around the > limitations of legacy tools on the content producer side.) Everything is temporary. Including HTML5. In this case, I think the problem will last a decade or more, and merits documentation and perhaps some accommodation. Whether HTML5 already has sufficient accommodation or whether adjusting things like the parsing of </br> merits revisiting is not something I am taking a position on. Meanwhile, you continue to use terms like 'elaborate' in order to further your personal agenda. - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 10 January 2011 11:10:36 UTC