- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:17:39 +0300
- To: Jukka K.Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
On Apr 25, 2007, at 08:28, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > If you first specify a requirement on documents (always use ";") > and then specify mandatory error processing related to it (browsers > must recognize entity references without ";"), then you have > effectively defined the error as a feature, though a deprecated > one. But you can proclaim that you have now defined a stricter > version of the language. :-) The difference is when a conformance checker alerts an author about an error. Since the omission of the semicolon is potentially confusing, it makes sense to make the omission non-conforming so that conformance checkers alert authors who have omitted the semicolon inadvertently (e.g. by pasting a URL that contains a query string part that looks like an entity reference). This way, unintentional omissions are caught. After all, deliberate omissions are probably only done by a small group of language lawyers. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 06:17:57 UTC