- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 20:59:19 +0300
On Apr 7, 2005, at 09:58, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: >> On Apr 6, 2005, at 13:22, Lachlan Hunt wrote: >>> If OpenSP was non-conformant, then any current or future UA that is >>> built with OpenSP as the parser would be non-conformant also, which >>> should not be the case. >> What OpenSP-based UAs are there besides validators? > > None that I know of yet, which is why I said current *or future* UAs. Can we, please, focus on real use cases, then? If it wasn't for that kind of SGML theorizing, perhaps HTML spec writers would never have been bothered to even pretend SGML is really involved. > There's no reason why a full conformance checker couldn't be based on > OpenSP. It would be prudent not to use OpenSP in order to avoid accidentally allowing SGMLisms that are alien to real-world tag soup. > Infact, it would probably be a good idea for them to do so, since then > they'll also be real validators too, which is part of the conformance > requirements. I don't think SGML validation is part of What WG conformance requirements. I thought Hixie has specifically said he doesn't bother with DTDs. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 10:59:19 UTC