- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 09:22:03 -0700
- To: www-validator@w3.org
Mr. Heins is having problems posting. Here is his email, which according to the headers was originally intended for this mailing list. --helpful Kynn >Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 23:56:15 -0400 >From: Mike Heins <mheins@redhat.com> >To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> >Cc: www-validator@w3.org >Subject: Re: Flagging & in URL in HTML 4.01 transitional type. >Reply-To: mike@minivend.com > >Quoting Kynn Bartlett (kynn@idyllmtn.com): >> At 12:11 PM -0400 2001/6/08, Mike Heins wrote: >> >In my opintion that validation is pedantic, and should certainly not >> >be flagged in the HTML 4.01 transitional type.\ >> >> Well, duh. All validation -is- pedantic. That's the point. If you're >> just going to say "I know the spec says this, and I don't care, and even >> if you have good reasons for it, it's still stupid" then you're not asking >> for real validation. Not in the technical sense. > >Perhaps that is true. Yet why do we have an HTML 4.01 transitional >spec, and an HTML 4.01 strict spec? And why does a C compiler have >a -pedantic switch? And why does a program like lint(1) have differing >levels? > >Maybe I am arguing that the HTML 4.01 transitional spec is wrong >and should be changed. All I wanted to do was find out solid reasons >why the validation flagged that, and I haven't found that out. No real >reason for this has been shown other than the case of ©=, and this >is defended because the semicolon is optional in an entity, as defined by >the spec. Why the heck would the semicolon be optional? What good reason >could there be for that? No one seems to know or care. It is the spec, >after all, and it must be validated. If that is the totality of the >mission statement, congratulations to the authors. > >I think I just ended up on the wrong list. > >> >> If you don't care what the specification says or why it says it, why >> do you care if your code can be validated against it? It's all about >> the pedantry, man. >> >> Validation does not mean "the browsers will or won't accept it". If >> that is what you think it means, then you need to do some research into >> what validation is REALLY about. >> > >If you look at the dictionary definition of pedant, it has a word in >the definition -- "needlessly". And pedants are eventually ignored by >most people, as I feel HTML 4 compliance is being ignored. I think >have found out why. > >This list appears to be silently moderated and without charter, not >allowing me to post or subscribe after my first post. I find that rude >in the extreme, particularly so in a quasi-public forum. > >Thanks for your response, and please bid the folks there a kind adieu, >as I cannot. > >-- >Red Hat, Inc., 3005 Nichols Rd., Hamilton, OH 45013 >phone +1.513.523.7621 <mheins@redhat.com> > >People who want to share their religious views with you >almost never want you to share yours with them. -- Dave Barry -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Saturday, 9 June 2001 12:30:22 UTC