- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:36:38 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
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. +1 > 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. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8038 > 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? http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7056 ... > 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 better. .... > 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