Re: Support Existing Content

On May 1, 2007, at 8:13 AM, Gareth Hay wrote:

> On 1 May 2007, at 15:42, Laurens Holst wrote:
>> What’s different from your ideas is that the difference lies not  
>> in forcing people into a new model if they want to use HTML5  
>> features, but still produce HTML content. This is e.g. very  
>> relevant for existing systems (that is, all systems that are  
>> existing now), where people want to add functionality without  
>> being forced into producing 100% well-formed XML content.
> I think this is the crux of the discussion.
> We both think the end point will be the same, but we arrive there  
> by two opposing methods.
> In my reckoning, people will always choose the easiest path. If  
> they write tag soup now, they will do so for HTML5 should it render  
> and 'get the job done'.
> By forcing some kind of checking we are educating these users that  
> they are doing it wrong, if they want to use new html5 features  
> they *need* to learn about it. Otherwise they carry on writing  
> html4 tag soup.

If writing nonconforming content is easier, then why is writing  
conforming content? Can we articulate the advantages in a way that  
will be convincing to content authors? If not, then what is the  
point? This is a serious question. Your messages all seem to assume  
that "valid" content is an end in itself, but surely, specific markup  
techniques are the means to achieving some practical goals.

Personally I think writing conforming content does achieve practical  
goals, and we can continue to make those clear to authors and provide  
them with easy access to conformance checking.


Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 19:22:12 UTC