- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 21:52:35 +0200
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>, HTML Issue Tracking WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Feb 3, 2008, at 15:06, Sam Ruby wrote: > At some point we have to wonder what we are trying to accomplish > here. There are lots of gray lines where &lang=en in the query part > of a URI should be non conforming, but a space in a path might not be. When authors do very often something that the spec defines as an error, I think we should examine whether it is useful to define it as an error or whether we should make it a conforming cowpath. If an error is very common AND the way browsers react to the error is interoperable the way browsers react to the error makes intuitive sense to authors (i.e. the browser behavior is not crazy) AND the error has harmless consequences, I think we should seriously consider making the error into a non-error in order to cut noise from validation results to allow authors to focus on more important matters. (I suspected spaces in IRIs may be an example of this case but I'm not sure.) If an error is very common AND the way browsers react to the error is interoperable the way browsers react to the error makes intuitive sense to authors (i.e. the browser behavior is not crazy) AND the error has less harmful consequences than the obvious workaround, I think we should seriously consider making the error into a non-error in order to avoid the more harmful consequences. (I think target='_blank' is an example of this case, and I'm pretty sure.) So what I'm trying to accomplish is making HTML5 validation errors more useful from the author point of view. I'd be particularly interested in your opinion on <img border='0'> considering your previous opinions on /> and content models (and usage on Planet Intertwingly). -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Sunday, 3 February 2008 19:52:55 UTC