- From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:17:57 +0100
- To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi David, On 09/08/05, David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 08:55:24PM +0100, Gez Lemon wrote: > > > You already have done so this evening. > > > > I've already put words in your mouth, or I've already said that > > education isn't important? > > The former. > > > I wasn't aware I had done either. Could you please be more explicit > > so that I can either apologise and retract my statement, or defend > > what I actually said. > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JulSep/0304.html > > "So we agree there's a problem. The only difference is that I would > like to see the problem addressed." Please accept my apologies, and allow me to rephrase my response: "So we agree there's a problem. The only difference is that I would like to see the problem addressed by the W3C validator team, and you would prefer it to be done through education alone", which I couldn't possibly have known at the time, as you didn't mention education until I did, at which point you used it against me. In fairness, the only thing I had to go on at the time I made my response is that you thought my opinions were "rubbish". > I decided to take a look at the script you pointed to earlier as an > example of why you think the feature is needed. There are lots of > things in it which would be hard to implement to implement in a > validator. Fail it then. I'm not defending that script; far from it. In terms of standards, it's as far away as you could get. I respect Bobby van der Sluis, and appreciate anyone who contributes so much of their free time to make things work, but I dislike that script. It won't work with application/xhtml+xml because it's not standards compliant. Being flagged as not standards compliant by a validator is a good thing in my opinion. > I suppose it is just about possible to do what you want. It would have > three major problems though. > > 1. It would be very difficult and require a /lot/ of man hours of work > to create I strongly disagree. If you already have a document tree, what can be difficult about inserting nodes and attributes? Getting the document tree in the first place would be a much more difficult task. Inserting elements and attribute after the event is a trivial exercise. > 2. It would be very difficult to present the information to the user > since there are dozens of different documents outputted by the > script that would be validated. If valid arguments are not available, default values will do. That's what programmers are taught to do, and it would be suitable in this situation. > 3. It would be very expensive (in CPU terms) to run More expensive than the recursion required to create a valid document tree? Catering for DOM injection would be done after the document tree has already been created, where elements and/or attributes are merely inserted into the resulting tree. Anything above and beyond creating the initial document tree is obviously going to take a bit more processing, but nothing that could be described as too intensive. Best regards, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 21:18:02 UTC