W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2009

Re: View Source

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:19:06 +0000
Message-ID: <49C18F7A.30204@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: www-svg@w3.org
CC: public-html@w3.org
Rick wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 4:09 AM, David Woolley
> <forums@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:
>> Rick wrote:
>>> Try filing feature requests.  If someone implements it, and it turns
>>> out to be as good a thing as it seems, other UA's will follow.
>> Markets generally only act on wants, this issue is more about needs.
>> The problem here is that the people who would most benefit from this sort of
>> feature are the least likely to be aware that they have a problem in the
>> first place.
> That sounds like a strawman argument, what people?  The topic of this

The people who currently learn their HTML, directly or indirectly, by 
using view source to copy how others have done it (and without complete 
understanding of what they have copied).  I'd suggest that represents a 
large proportion of those authors who will benefit from the policy that 
invalid HTML5 must be "interoperable" (produce the same result, which 
does not involve generating error messages).

> thread basically boils down to this.  Is it within the realm of a
> document specification to impose rules on a user agent beyond the
> scope of the document definition.

I don't know if you are coming at this from the HTML5 or SVG side.  From 
the HTML5 side, the browser developers already have a lot imposed on 
them, because of the requirement that even invalid documents should 
reproduce essentially identically on all browsers.  If you are from the 
SVG side, you may not quite realise that this whole thread is about 
extending that to SVG as well.

Note that a reasonable qualification would be that the requirement only 
applied if the browser provided some sort of source display capability.

David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 00:20:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:45 UTC