- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:32:43 -0700
On Jul 14, 2004, at 1:24 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > Yes. People rely on DTDs in a way which has led to millions of authors > to > have a false sense of having done the right thing, when in fact their > documents are sometimes worse than documents that are syntactically > slightly broken but semantically fine. Agreed, but as a Web Designer who is almost never smart enough to get a page design right first time, and who thus spends time crawling down CSS rat-holes, I have to say that the online HTML and CSS validators are incredibly useful at helping me find my more obvious bugs, and thus are huge time-savers. Nobody claims that having validated successfully really proves anything of much use, but precise indications of how & where you're *not* valid are incredibly useful. Thus I think the work of the WHAT-WG would be substantially more useful to the community if it were accompanied by some sort of validator that would help people like me deal with the consequences of our own stupidity. I agree with someone else who suggested that Relax-NG/Schematron would be the sensible way to go about constructing such a thing. I would further point out that the RelaxNG community is full of people in evangelism mode who might be inclined to pitch in and help if asked. - Tim Bray, Director of Web Technologies, Sun Microsystems +1-877-305-0889 http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/ AIM: MarkupPedant -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2369 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20040714/55b2c8d5/attachment.bin>
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2004 09:32:43 UTC