- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:20:25 -0800
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > 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. To start with, it would trigger validation errors when elements are > implicitly closed. Other checks could also be considered. How would this affect other UA vendors than browser vendors? I have similar concerns as others have raised here. We already have two ways to interpret content served as text/html. One according to the HTML5 spec, and one according to the XHTML1.1 spec. Which I think is one too many. Adding a third mode adds to the confusion I feel. People that want to have further checking than what is mandated by the HTML5 spec, and thus by a HTML5 validator, can do this using lint tools and other tools checking for best practices. Just like jslint has a whole slew of options, so would I imagine that a html-lint tool would have. I don't feel the need for us to standardize what such a tool should check for. It seems best to let the community grow such a tool organically. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 08:21:18 UTC