- From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:44:17 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 05:36:30PM +0200, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Just curious if there's been any discussion about making the validator > more microformat-friendly; i.e., not calling extension > attributes/elements invalid So no telling the user that their document doesn't follow the DTD they claim to be using (which is the whole point of validation)? That sounds rather ... wrong. >, only calling out the first occurrence, etc. For some errors, only the first instance is reported already. I'd far rather see it go the other way (and report all errors, all the time) so that users aren't mislead into thinking that an error they repeated in a document only occurs once. If you want to use a language other then (X)HTML and still validate, then use a Doctype that references a custom DTD (and be aware that the document IS non-standard and ISN'T HTML). Also: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/customdtds2/ -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk
Received on Monday, 6 June 2005 15:44:19 UTC