- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 07:21:24 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
On 10/03/2013 03:05 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote: > > We don't want to make it harder for authors to know when they have > documents that contain names which aren't part of any standard, and we > don't want to make it harder for authors to catch misspelled attribute > names, and we don't want authors to end up being even further limited in > the choice of tools they can use -- limited to only using tools that are > complex enough to understand all the magic we're introducing. [chair hat off] As implementer of a validator for another set of markup languages (Atom, RSSes), my thoughts match Mike's though I end up with a slightly different conclusion. WebComponents defines a mechanism by which new elements may be minted. So any name containing a hyphen may potentially be valid. A page should only be validate without messages if such a name was actually minted, and can be verified as being used correctly. Note that I said "validate without message", not "considered valid". For comparison, here is the relevant section in the RFC for Atom: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#section-6.4 Here are the corresponding feedvalidator test cases: https://github.com/rubys/feedvalidator/tree/master/testcases/atom/6.4 Here is the results of validation: http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedvalidator.org%2Ftestcases%2Fatom%2F6.4%2Fextension-unknown-noerror.xml Here is the help message produced: http://feedvalidator.org/docs/warning/UnknownNamespace.html In the case of Web Components, this is made more complicated because templates can be defined in a separately fetched template page. An HTML validator would need to make a choice as to whether or not it follows such imports. But the end result is the same: the only thing this choice would affect is the wording of the warning message and help. - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 11:21:59 UTC