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

Re: HTML5 Authoring Conformance Study

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:28:25 -0400
Message-ID: <4BA77079.80508@intertwingly.net>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
On 03/22/2010 05:11 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> "Sam Ruby"<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>> google.com:
> The message wasn't about lack of</body>  or</html>  but about the
> lack of another end tag. (</center>? I didn't verify.) The problem
> being solved is that the author may not have intended to keep the
> element open all the way to EOF.

"may not have intended".  Given that this is google.com, I find it 
unlikely that this was unintentional.  RFC 2119:

3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
    may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
    particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
    carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

>> baidu.com:
>> What interop issues are solved by requiring script elements to
>> come before</body>?
> You can't actually put a script as the next sibling of the body
> element node. This error solves the problem of alerting authors that
> the parser doesn't generate the tree that the source appears to
> generate if you aren't an expert in HTML5 parsing rules.

So.... there may exist valid reasons in a particular circumstance to 
ignore this particular requirement?

> "Maciej Stachowiak"<mjs@apple.com>  wrote:
>> For what it's worth, I don't personally see the value in making
>> presentational elements and attributes an error.
> Making presentational attributes and elements errors has the value of
> getting political buy-in from people who've spent a decade saying
> that presentational markup is bad.
> If we make<font>  not to be an error, some people will flip the bozo
> bit on us. We can't please everyone simultaneously on the topic of
> presentational markup.

Name the individual.  I'm not being facetious.

We need to formulate a consistent policy, and apply that policy 
consistently.  If there exist valid reasons in a particular circumstance 
to ignore this particular requirement, then this is simply not a MUST.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 22 March 2010 13:29:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:13 UTC