- From: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 06:05:10 -0400
- To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- CC: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
On 3/25/09 5:57 AM, James Graham wrote: > 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. <o:p>Okay... what do they need?</o:p> > 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. <o:p>In the short term, sure. But the HTML WG is no longer operating on a short timeline.</o:p> >> 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. <o:p>Maybe you should substantiate your claims. How are these things bad for authors? It seems to me that the web is a great jumble of parse errors that works pretty well.</o:p> - Rob
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2009 10:05:52 UTC