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

(unknown charset) Re: AuthConfReq: Presentational Markup

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:37:43 +0200
To: (unknown charset) Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: (unknown charset) Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100331213743526449.78f7edc0@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Sam Ruby, Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:35:39 -0400:
> On 03/31/2010 05:17 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
   [...]
>> at least a subset of the document conformance criteria are 
>> important for documents to be interoperable with user agents.
   [...]
>> Granted, this is a considerably smaller set than the full set of
>> conformance criteria in the spec currently. But I think this has to be
>> the minimum baseline, rather than no document requirements whatsoever.
 [...]

> 7) Errors that can result in infoset coercion
> 
> Needs further discussion.  Those that wish to use XML user agents may 
> want to outlaw consecutive dashes in comments or apply other 
> technique for dealing with same, but this use case doesn't affect 
> most authors, and such restrictions will be routinely ignored.

The tail/last paragraph of section '1.9.2 Syntax errors' [1] provides a 
solution that could also be applied to to 7):

]]
Some authors find it helpful to be in the practice of always quoting 
all attributes and always including all optional tags, preferring the 
consistency derived from such custom over the minor benefits of 
terseness afforded by making use of the flexibility of the HTML syntax. 
To aid such authors, conformance checkers can provide modes of 
operation wherein such conventions are enforced.
[[

Note that the spec's explanatory text of 7) ends like this:

]]
Most syntax constructs that require such handling are considered 
invalid.
[[

How about changing this to say that '*None* of the syntax constructs 
that require such handling are considered invalid' ?

[1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/introduction#syntax-errors
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 19:38:18 UTC

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