- From: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:06:53 +0900
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org, Aubrey Jaffer <agj@alum.mit.edu>
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > As far as I remember, the problem was the idea of making the parsing > itself something different from the kind of SGML parsing required by HTML > 4, instead of just issuing warnings _in addition to_ doing the very job > that a validator is supposed to do. > Or maybe it was just the implementation, especially making the validator > explicitly claim that a document is invalid when it is in fact valid. Indeed, after looking closer at the history, it seems that the "fussy" parsing was unpopular because fussy parsing would report shorttag usage as "invalid" when it is, strictly speaking, valid. It's just valid, yet wrong most of the times. Giving warnings here should cause little fuss. I've hacked around this and made the shorttag-triggered messages warnings instead of errors, and added some explanations to the obscure warning messages issued by opensp. test at: http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fqa-dev.w3.org%2Fwmvs%2FHEAD%2Fdev%2Ftests%2Fshorttags.html -- olivier
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 07:07:18 UTC