- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 13:59:42 +0200
- To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, HTML WG (public-html@w3.org) <public-html@w3.org>
Charles McCathie Nevile, Fri, 04 Oct 2013 13:22:41 +0100: > On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 08:05:07 +0100, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote: >> Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, 2013-09-19 17:18 +0200: >>> logical conclusion from that is that where validators are concerned, >>> elements containing hyphens ought to always just be considered valid. >> >> I don't think that would be a good idea. > > I'm with Mike, essentially for the reasons he outlined so far. > > Opening a big hole in the spec means we lose a lot of ability to test > if things are correct. And except where conformance is rigourously > enforced (in the kingdom of the unicorns), tools are able to allow > extensibility anyway. As I understood what Sam suggested[1], the validator did not need to “bless” all elements containing hyphens as valid. The validator could instead consider *some* known hyphenated elements as valid (eventually partially linked to known prefixes), the same way that the validator, today, knows elements as valid. And all other hyphenated elements could be considered simply 'unknown'. Quoting Sam: «A page should only be validate without messages if such a name was actually minted, and can be verified as being used correctly.» Of course, if the validator stamped any prefixed element as 'unknown' class might by seen as synonymous with 'valid', by some. But I don't think that is a “real issue” if the validator is tuned well. [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/524D5334.5080203@intertwingly.net -- leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 12:00:16 UTC