- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:06:53 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > ... > Why might it be worth it? It seems that the XML serialization of HTML5 > already serves this use case. Adding a second draconian syntax doesn't > seem like it adds anything. A new draconian syntax would also have > several disadvantages over the XML serialization, namely it would not > ... It depends. One advantage is that you would actually be able to use it in the real world; which you can't with XHTML (and the proper mime type) because of IE. The interesting question is: what kind of errors would it catch? For instance, there's a class of errors that a non-validating XML parser will not complain about, but which would be useful to diagnose (such as when elements appear in the wrong place, of if attributes use a wrong syntax). > ... > work with existing XML tools and it would not work as intended in any > current browser. Furthermore, asking new browsers to do draconian > parsing when all current browsers would parse the same content leniently > seems like it would trigger a race to the bottom and neuter the feature. > ... That's indeed a problem, and would require some coordination for deployment. BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 08:07:45 UTC