W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: why valid was Re: why XHTML

From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:59:20 -0700
Cc: tina@greytower.net, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Message-Id: <0967F0DD-A769-11D7-A257-000393B628BC@w3.org>

On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 03:11  PM, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> Matt, do you agree that a user agent parsing an XHTML document which
> encounters style rules within <!-- comments --> in the <style> element
> should completely ignore those style rules?

If you want me to state that there are differing levels of severity in 
validity flaws, I'll be happy to state that, especially as relates to 
style and CDATA, it's not a severe violation, or a reason to fall out 
of standards mode. As it is, the spec doesn't say it's invalid. What it 
does say is that an XML parser could be thrown off if a < or & is 
present in the CSS code.


But your thesis, that browsers do and should refuse to render XHTML 
content if it's invalid, is itself invalid. Browsers simply don't do 
this, and they never will. A "fatal error" in this context merely means 
it can't be parsed in standards mode, and a browser can claim to be a 
Conforming User Agent by dropping from standards mode to quirks mode 
when this happens, just like it does with HTML.

I'd say "let's not get hooked on semantics," but I suspect my Semantic 
Web colleagues would take that the wrong way. :)

Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 19:59:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:16 UTC