- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 12:32:59 -0500
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > Currently the spec assumes the former is more important. Personally, I > think the latter is rather more useful, but then I use "--" as long > dashes all the time! When this was last studied, the weight of argument > was on the stricter "disallow --" side of things, presumably. > > I'm open to changing this back; does anyone else have an opinion on this? I also use "--" as dash a lot. I don't think XML compatibility is significant -- few authors will want to serialize their pages to XML. (Are there other cases where we warn or error for text/html that produces a DOM that can't serialize to XML?) So I'd be in favor of allowing it. If we're worried about commenting out comments, then raise a warning on that. But I don't think it's a big issue. In most cases it will cause some other parse error anyway. On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > The "compiler" here is the browser -- and the browser won't reject "--" in > a comment. Only the validator will. The validator is the equivalent of the > lint tool in Vim. Except that it's not unheard of for web authors to be required to write valid code, because some customers demand it, so it's a little more weighty than vim syntax highlighting.
Received on Friday, 7 January 2011 09:32:59 UTC