Re: Formal definition of HTML5 (was Re: Version information)

On 16. apr. 2007, at 23.32, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Henrik Dvergsdal wrote:
>>> Putting forward a formal schema causes people to claim that things
>>> that are not caught by the schema are allowed, even when this
>>> contradicts other claims in the specification.
>> I don't see this as a major problem. Most competent developers  
>> will be
>> aware that this is only a partial check, especially if we warn about
>> this in text and descriptions.
> It is a huge problem, IMHO, because most developers aren't  
> competent by
> that definition.

First of all: I'm sorry for introducing the term "competence" into  
this discussion.

As I indicated earlier: There will always be aspects of programming  
languages (and programs) that aren't automatically checked. This is  
just a question of where to draw the line. Everyone knows that  
running a HTML document successfully through a syntax checker is no  
guarantee that your document or program is correct. This comes from  
experience - we are quite used to getting things wrong from time to  
time, even when our documents validate.

> Also, I _want_ my tools to catch as many errors as
> possible. Having the spec artificially limit what errors can be caught
> seems like an unnecessary limitation.

I cannot see how having an official schema (or an official set of  
schemas) imposes any limits on our tools.

> (And if we do have a spec schema,
> and it doesn't catch everything, you know people will claim that
> conformance checkers that catch mistakes the spec schema wouldn't  
> flag are
> buggy and are reporting bogus errors.

I don't think so. If they wonder about errors from a conformance  
checker, they will consult the spec and not the schema, especially if  
the errors are accompanied by text encouraging them to do so.


Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 07:28:03 UTC