- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:57:11 +0100
- To: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- CC: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Rob Sayre wrote: > On 3/25/09 3:30 AM, Doug Schepers wrote: >> In particular, I was personally disappointed that the request to call >> out unquoted attributes and case-folding as parse errors was not >> incorporated; > > It's incorrect for the HTML spec to call them parse errors if they can > be interoperably parsed by HTML parsers. It's not a good use of > Mozilla's resources to spend time debating interoperable errors. On the basis that things labeled parse errors generally lead to unexpected, albeit interoperable, parsing, they are bad for authors. It is part of our design principles that we consider the needs of authors (above implementors, even) as part of the language design. If you feel that it is not a good use of your/your employer's time to debate these points, I guess you can just ignore them. > There is probably a role for a lint tool here, but that requires > interaction with users more than standards group involvement. IMHO such abdication of responsibility would be doing users of the language a great disservice. Oh and on the more technical issue, it seems like the issue of non-XML-like SVG is only a problem in the case where the SVG is hand authored, uses non-XML-like features, and then later someone wants to copy it into an authoring tool that does not support the SVG-in-HTML syntax. This seems like a situation that will be rare to begin with (since the impression I get is that most SVG is authored in a tool) and will disappear over time (as SVG editors start to support SVG in text/html). On the other hand, the inconsistency between SVG and anything else in text/html is something that would always have to be called out explicitly in any tutorial, that would make the platform look confusing and inconsistent, and that anyone used to HTML would probably get wrong anyway, it doesn't seem like making these cases a parse error would buy us much.
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 09:57:55 UTC