- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:59:24 -0400
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/22/2010 06:55 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Mar 20, 2010, at 14:14, Sam Ruby wrote: >> One simple example to show how this relates to issue-41. Suppose a >> person authors a page for iPhone users. This page to be served in >> PHP. This person uses Emacs. During the course of development, at >> one point some portion of the page is commented out. That portion >> happens to contain to contain consecutive dashes. Per the current >> draft, this is a conformance error. Per Validator.nu, the reason >> given is this data can't be serialized as XML 1.0. > > I think you are mischaracterizing what Validator.nu says. It gives an > error saying that consecutive hyphens aren't allowed. It doesn't give > a reason why they aren't allowed. Then it gives a discretionary > warning that says the document isn't representable as XML 1.0 due to > consecutive hyphens in a comment. So what is the rationale for this restriction? >> As a user, my reaction would be along the lines of "thanks for >> sharing". At no point in any scenario that this user cares about >> is an XML 1.0 serializer involved. > > I'm now confused about your position on polyglot documents. I thought > you wanted more validator warnings on constructs that aren't > permitted in both HTML5 and XHTML5. Did you want them only > optionally? Not producing a polyglot document certainly should not be an error. An option would be a "nice to have", time permitting, should somebody be willing to work on it. Eventually, I might be that somebody. Or might not. > As for the error, wouldn't the spec move away from--not closer > to--what the Super Friends (and maybe at one point or another the > TAG) have asked for if the consecutive hyphens weren't an error? (I'm > not suggesting that you'd need to agree with the Super Friends or > anyone else. I'm just pointing out that aligning the spec with your > wishes more may end up aligning it with someone else's wishes less.) Wishes are not a good way of determining what is or is not an error. > I also note that in this general area, there lurks an actual interop > issue with Gecko's old HTML parser: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214476 Thanks! > When you talk about interop issues, do you mean actual interop issues > with software deployed today (even if that software might fade away > in the future) or interop issues in a future scenario where every > piece of software conforms to the spec? If there are valid reasons to ignore a particular item, then a MUST is not appropriate. >> Now consider site #5 on the internet: live.com. I'm also pretty >> sure that this site was not authored using Emacs. It, too, is >> served as text/html. It contains an attribute that validator.nu >> asserts can't be serializable as XML 1.0. The statement that >> validator.nu makes is somewhat incomplete and arguably misleading. > > How so? You can't represent an attribute whose local name is > "xmlns:web" and that doesn't have a namespace in XML 1.0 plus > Namespaces. > > Not saying this because the source stream would be well-formed XML > but with another document tree seems to me to be about scoring > political points among people who like the appearance of using XML > more than they care about the document being actually polyglot. > However, making various presentational elements and attributes > conforming would lose a lot of political points with another (but > non-trivially overlapping) constituency. > > How should we decide which political points to go for? Wishes are not a good way of determining what is or is not an error. >> I'll also note that the xml:lang attribute that is also present in >> this same page does not meet the criteria of producing a DOM when >> parsed using an HTML parser that can also be produced using an XML >> parser. > > True. However, for conforming documents, this doesn't alter the > meaning of the document, because xml:lang in text/html is only > allowed when accompanied by lang with the same value. Meaning is in the eye of the beholder. The DOM is different. - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 22 March 2010 14:00:01 UTC