Re: Notes on validome test suite / validators comparison

olivier Thereaux wrote:
> I'm curious as to why you so adamantly want to ban non-ascii IRIs  
> from HTML?

Please tell me that you're joking.  Native IRIs are nice where they
are permitted.  But on ICANN's Wiki using XHTML 1.0 they will cause

Sooner or later mediawiki will be fixed to generate valid XHTML 1.0,
translating native IRIs to equivalent URIs on the fly.  After all
that's REQUIRED for backwards compatibility in the numerous Wikis
based on mediawiki.  Users want that something happens when they
click on a link, without upgrading their browser.  And native IRIs
are designed to have an equivalent URI-form.

Sooner or later validators will be fixed to validate URIs, what with
all those "URI exploits" we've seen in the last weeks for XP after
the installation of IE7. And when validators do their job all users
who naively followed ICANN and W3C into the realms of "who cares
about validity if it works" will be seriously annoyed.

I can still tell you the day when the W3C validator started to flag
€ as invalid on a windows-1252 page. I was working on this
page, it was stunning. 

> from what I am gathering from the experts, given the spirit of the
> specs (written before IDNs and IRIs) and the level of support for
> IDNs, barking at IRIs in href and src would be counterproductive
> for the internationalization of the web.

I'm curious which expert propagates to violate specifications.  Want
to know how long it took me to create an XHTML ersatz-DTD permitting
IRIs everywhere ?

30 minutes.  Check out


Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 07:43:06 UTC