- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:53:50 +0200
- To: HTML4All <list@html4all.org>
- Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org, "Al Gilman" <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:21:34 +0200, Philip TAYLOR
<Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org> wrote:
> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
>>> Saying that such products should be
>>> programmed to output invalid HTML isn't a viable answer, either.
>>
>> Why not? Almost *every* tool I know of that produces HTML produces
>> invalid
>> HTML, so I am not sure how you determine that there is some existential
>> reason why this cannot happen.
>
> Are you serious, Charles ? Are you really arguing that
> the generating of invalid code is an acceptable option ?
Yes. Under certain circumstances it is an acceptable option, if the choice
is between several things, none of which produce a desired outcome and
this is the one that does the least harm, and if the consequential
effects. It is even in W3C recommendations.
> If so, I would seriously suggest you move a motion to
> disolve the W3C, since it would have no role whatsoever
> in the anarchic world that you appear to be willing to
> tolerate.
Actually, I think W3C has an important role to play in the anarchic world
in which I live. I did not validity is not important. The point of my
question is that it is clearly feasible to produce invalid code without
the web grinding to a halt (since the web works despite being almost all
of the HTML on it being invalid), therefore I don't understand why it is
not possible to argue that breaking validity *may* be a reasonable
approach to a given problem.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 11:54:49 UTC