Re: Proposal: Polyglot validation in degrees - not boolean

Henri Sivonen, Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:47:19 +0200:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> And what do the "validation community", especially Henri and Mike,
>> think?
> I have no interest in implementing polyglot checking for
> One of the reasons why I think there should be no polyglot REC is that
> I don’t want people to ask validator developers to waste time
> developing polyglot checking. (That’s not the primary reason why I’m
> opposed to promoting polyglot. The main reason is that I think it’s
> wrong to lure Web authors into jumping through useless hoops like
> happened with Appendix C.)
> I am still interested in adding an option for flagging implied tags in
> That seems to be something that authors liked about
> XHTML 1.0-as-text/html validation. Also, I believe it would go a long
> way addressing Sam’s use case of authoring HTML so that it can be
> safely fed to a non-conforming HTML parser.

Well, I am, at any rate, happy to hear that you consider flagging 
implied tags. Also, I have suggested elsewhere that the spec should 
tell the validator to flag lack of use of UTF-8. You seemed positive 
towards that, but Ian was not into that. (But course, the validator 
could warn against things that are allowed by the spec.)
leif halvard silli

Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 20:15:25 UTC