- From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 14:26:45 +0100
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, www-html@w3.org
On 1 May 2007, at 14:09, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > >> I'm sure she knows that the majority of web sites would break if >> used with a user agent that fully validated against the >> specification. >> (I suspect that she was not putting a high priority on the >> features that are only implied by the formal SGML definition, >> rather than the narrative.) > > You can't claim that a spec can be implemented, and then > selectively exclude sections that prove otherwise. Without SGML, > HTML4 *does not* define any parsing, syntax or error handling > requirements, which makes it impossible to implement from the start. > > Now, consider that there is little practical difference between a > spec that doesn't define those things, and one that does by > referencing a spec that cannot be implemented in the real world > anyway. The fact is that HTML4 *cannot* be implemented as defined, > period. > You are seriously suggesting that no matter how many monkeys you have with typewriters, you will never get the complete works of the W3C? Or to put it another way, aren't you *really* suggesting that current user agents cannot implement the spec as defined? Gareth
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 13:27:01 UTC