W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

Re: Re-registration of text/html

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:19:24 +0100
To: "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u9f1amikidj3kv@c-9498e355.410-6-64736c14.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se>
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:13:47 +0100, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>  
wrote:

> Be that as it may, I note a related discussion on the validator forum:
>
>    http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.validator/12444

http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t163088-html-tag-missing-but-still-validating.html

> I can't help but wonder if one small change to HTML5 that would reduce  
> this confusion, and yet would have zero inpact to browser vendors.  This  
> change would be to change the definition of the xmlns attribute on the  
> html element from a talisman to a trigger of a few additional, yet  
> simple, validation checks.

I think this would actually add to the confusion. It would lead to people  
to include unnecessary bytes in their markup because they think it invokes  
"strict parsing" in browsers or is "more semantic". c.f. XHTML doctypes.

If you want to opt-in to additional validation checks, the right place for  
it is in the validator's UI, IMHO.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 07:20:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC