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

Re: Bug 7034

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:19:47 -0400
Message-ID: <4BACD093.6030903@intertwingly.net>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
On 03/26/2010 10:02 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
>> I'd also prefer that there be some mechanism in the document itself
>> to indicate which sets of a given document conforms to.  I believe
>> that would be helpful to editing tools and validators alike.
>
> I guess some people like Emacs modelines and others like Eclipse's
> per-project settings...

There isn't such a thing as a "project" on the web.  People can, and 
will, validate each other's pages.  I see value in being able to express 
notions such as "this page intentionally violates rule number 34".

> I can see the point of e.g. oXygen schema PIs, but I still think
> standalone validators should err on the side of answering questions
> posed in the validator UI rather than answering questions posed by
> the document.

We differ on that... to this day, I still get questions along the lines 
of "well if you don't like that, then why don't you use the the HTML4 
doctype instead?".

I subscribe to the notion that once unleashed it is virtually impossible 
to take back any permissions that have been granted on the internet 
short of minting a new mime type.

> I'm worried that validator modelines could become the next
> X-UA-Compatible for browsers. But then, denying validator modelines
> didn't stop X-UA-Compatible from being introduced.

If something is defined (and it isn't clear that there will be consensus 
on such), then it needs to be documented in a way that specifies that it 
is only an authoring mode consideration, and has zero effect on parsing 
and rendering.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 26 March 2010 15:21:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:00 UTC