- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 08:22:34 -0400
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/21/2010 03:20 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > I've decided that it's worthwhile to review the HTML5 conformance errors > reported on notable sites in more details. I started the following wiki > page to collect data: > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/HTML5_Authoring_Conformance_Study > > Thanks to Aryeh Gregor and myself, we now have a full classification of > HTML5 conformance errors on the Alexa Top 10. Thanks also to Sam Ruby > for his blog post that inspired the set of sites chosen and links to > similar data in raw form. If anyone would like to help with gathering > the data for the remaining sites, it would be much appreciated. The > methodology is documented on the wiki page. "full"? Not hardly. <grin> I still remain deeply concerned about a "Ready? Fire! Aim?" approach to solving these problems. The first thing that needs to be done is to decide on what problems does Authhor Conformance Requirements address, and how does the having them makes things better? In short, we would be best served by requiring a change proposal for such things. Meanwhile, I've selected one issue each from the top ten list to explore further here. google.com: the script tag is not unclosed, the html and body tags are unclosed. HTML5 has many elements which do not require close tags. It even has many tags that are entirely optional. Both of these tags are entirely optional, but apparently if present must be explicitly closed. What operational interop problem does this solve? facebook.com: How is this a "bad doctype"? What operational interop problem does it solve to identify this doctype as non-conforming? I thought the HTML5 strategy was that the web is to be considered as non-versioned. yahoo.com: y-pkgid could arguably conform to "proposal Y" for issue-41. Allowing "modid" would both inhibit the ability of the validator to catch misspellings, and the ability for future versions of the spec to define new attributes. youtube.com: What interop issues are solved by disallowing div elements inside of span elements? live.com: This issue has already been widely discussed. Additional information can be found here: http://philip.html5.org/data/xmlns-bindings.txt wikipedia.org: While there are no errors, there is a warning, and getting the definition of IRI correct is definitely something that is relevant to HTML5. blogger.com: What interop issues are solved by disallowing blank targets? baidu.com: What interop issues are solved by requiring script elements to come before </body>? msn.com: Separate issues: whitespaces within query and whitespace either before or after the IRI. qq.com: I realize that X-UA-compatible is controversial, but non-conforming? - Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 21 March 2010 12:23:09 UTC