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

Re: Re-registration of text/html

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:20:25 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f1003120020q73ff4cc5m9237b8c09444e16d@mail.gmail.com>
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

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