- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:43:59 +0100
- To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Michael[tm] Smith, Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:09:10 +0900: Co-chairs: Does Mike and Henri’s[1] unwillingness to create a validator even matter? Can't we send the spec to RECOMMENDATION unless we have a validator? Mike: In trying to understand what Henri said about authors, I see that he was afraid that A List Apart would write about polyglot. And clearly many authors read ALA. But I find only 2 references to Appendix C at ALA.[2] Henri seems to forget that it was XHTML 1.0 that spread the message that XHTML syntax is OK in text/html. Hey, W3.org uses XHTML syntax all over - to this day. But as told in the Polyglot Recommendation Rationale page:[3] when XHTML 1.0 came along, all it brought was a new syntax. And thus, naturally the syntax caught attention. Even XML was new then. However, with HTML5, we have lots of real new features that take the attetion. And with HTML5, the difference and likenesses of XHTML and HTML are spelt out in the main spec - HTML5. Not least does HTML5 "bless" many XML-isms. Thus we are far from in the same situation. Even XML is not as hot as it once was. Thus, this "history repeat" argument seems not very well founded. > it's bad for authors because it introduces another perceived > requirement that a lot of them are going to feel compelled to try to meet > -- whether they actually understand what it even is or why it's there. This is up to how you design the interface. Daniel offered a nice interface in BlueGriffon.[4] (BlueGriffon 1.6.1 has since then been released - with the polyglot option!) Daniel's design reminds about the options that NU validator already has. E.g. NU validator’s image checking tool. As long as they are not the default option, then there should be no reason to have the fear that authors will be seen as a "perceived requirement". Or do you have other experiences with the current extra options? > What I mean is that many authors are going to try the option, find that > their documents fail to validate under it, and then feel the need to fiddle > with documents that are otherwise fine just in order to fix "errors" > reported by the Polyglot option. This allows me to bring in NU validator's presets. NU validator currently has 10 presets, of which 5 are HTML5/XHTMl5 presets. The "extra option" design that Daniel has in Blue Griffon, would probably lead to a polyglot option in each of the five XHTML5/HTML5 presets. But if you fear - or experience - that polyglot as an "extra option" fails to be perceived the right way, then you could just change the option into a new, preset number 11. Justification: I doubt that NU validator has any users that try to run all the 10 presets on the same page. > On top of that, there's the additional opportunity for more fun with the > really negative social dynamic of markup pedants who like to run other > people's documents through the validator so they can then point out to the > authors, Haha, you think you know so much about markup, but your document > doesn't even pass the W3C validator without errors. See what I said above about presets. If someone does try to run all the current 10 presets, then I doubt that it causes the negative social dynamic that you describe below if someone discovers a page that doesn't pass all the 10 presets … Thus, an 11th polyglot preset, would not have these effects that you fear. > I really don't think authors would be well-served by us adding the option, > and certainly I don't think that we have a large number of authors who are > crying out for us to add it. I believe I hereby have counted your arguments about how polyglot validation would be bad for authors. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Jan/0059 [2] http://www.google.no/search?hl=en&q=%22appendix+c%22+site%3Aalistapart.com [3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/PolyglotRecommendationRationale [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Jan/0127 -- leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 04:44:38 UTC