- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:28:25 -0400
- 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