- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:50:33 +0100
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen, Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:56:30 +0200: > On Jan 20, 2010, at 13:50, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > >> What most people will be interested in is what the W3 Validator >> considers valid. > > Indeed, it probably a more relevant consideration for many than what > the specs say. I for one agree with you that a validator should be a development/authoring tool. However, with the "applicable specification" concept as the only extension point, the weight of what the (W3) validator considers valid will only increase in importance against the weight of the spec. One way to make the point that "validation is not all that matters" is to make it very simple to validate stuff (= easy to add extensions that can be validated with "off the shelf" validators = having technical extensions rather than "applicable" extensions.). If you on purpose want to make it difficult for people to validate stuff that is not part of the main spec, then you are not operating with a pure development view of what validation is meant for. Instead you are mixing in your perception of how (for example) I perceive validators/validation. >> b) if you do go for an >> extension, make sure that it can be W3 validated = best thing is to >> submit the spec to the W3. > > That probably helps. However, it seems that it's neither necessary > (Atom validation is offered) <feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"> I've read the Atom history. But Atom has both a W3 namespace and is based on XML. That way it can also be be validated as part of an XHTML document, I suppose. > nor sufficient (XForms validation is not offered). It is also a significantly newer recommendation. If it is a conscious decision, then it shows that having a technical extension point - rather than only the "applicable spec" extension point - does not prohibit validators from /not/ offering validation, when "needed". -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 13:51:07 UTC