- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:31:01 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- cc: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Nick Kew wrote: > >Disagree. IMO the approach of htmlhelp and valet (default to > >a parse mode that complains of shorttags) is right. > > To *warn* about the use of some SHORTTAGS features is ok, > but "prohibiting" them is not unless the HTML WG publishes > normative reference material that clearly states using > the feature renders the document invalid. Indeed. As I said, valet and htmlhelp make this an option, which is the approach I recommend. But this raises the problem of overburdening deezyners with technical details they don't understand. Hence the second recommendation that the *default* behaviour should be the one that gives the most *practically* useful results. Again, that's what htmlhelp and valet do. As regards distinguising warnings from errors, that's a lot more complex than it should be. They all come from nsgmls, which doesn't make the distinction. -- Nick Kew
Received on Monday, 11 November 2002 13:31:10 UTC