- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 22:07:40 +1000
Olav Junker Kj?r wrote: > Lachlan Hunt wrote: > >> Validators should not be non-conformant simply because they only do >> their job to validate a document and nothing else. I don't see any >> reason why such a statement needs to be included at all. > > I like the requirement! > The intention is (I assume) to prevent validators to claim "this > document is valid HTML5" while the document might very well be invalid > according to the spec. No, you are using the term "invalid" incorrectly in this case. Validity has a fairly strict definition as it applies to SGML document validation, meaning something like "valid according to the formal definition expressed in the DTD". However, you are correct in that "valid" HTML 5 document may be *non-coformant* (not invalid) according to HTML5, as is the case for all other versions of (X)HTML. > The problem is that validators use the term "valid" in a very limited > sense, but web authors without a through understanding of DTD-validation > would naturally assume that "valid" would mean "valid according to the > spec". Lack of understanding by document authors about the terminology used is no reason to make a validator non-conformant. A validator is not lying by saying that a document is "valid", even if it's non-conformant. It is simply doing its job correctly, and the spec should allow it to do so without being non-coformant itself. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 05:07:40 UTC