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

(unknown charset) Re: HTML5 Authoring Conformance Study

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:36:38 +0100
To: (unknown charset) Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: (unknown charset) Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100321183638063619.e41d2aab@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Sam Ruby, Sun, 21 Mar 2010 08:22:34 -0400:
> On 03/21/2010 03:20 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 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?

In the other end of the problem: It seems that my and (I dear say) 
Maciej's bug "Permit closing tag for new, void elements - for legacy 
compatibility = XHTML alignment" is related to this.

> 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.

Indeed. I have said similar things. A "warning" doesn't seem right. 
Eventually, "information" instead of "warning" could be of help.

> youtube.com:
> What interop issues are solved by disallowing div elements inside of 
> span elements?

This is the same question as bug 7056 about flow element inside 
<caption>: why are they permitted there? And if permitted there, why 
not also inside <h1>/<h6> elements?


> blogger.com:
> What interop issues are solved by disallowing blank targets?

Here I assume that Validator.nu takes a "I am an authoring helping 
tool" approach. Categorizing it as "superfluous attribute" would be 
> qq.com:
> I realize that X-UA-compatible is controversial, but non-conforming?

Indeed. Have already said similar things. And I don't understand why 
X-UA-compatible is more controversial than conditional comments. 
(Conditional comments typically causes authors to write document in a 
"un-semantic" way.)
leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 21 March 2010 17:37:12 UTC

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