- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:19:47 -0400
- 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