Re: AUTOCOMPLETE=off is now a valid tag for input tags

olivier Thereaux wrote:

>> The X in XHTML is supposed to mean eXtensible.
>  The X in XHTML comes from the X in XML.

Let's say it's the X in the proverb about X and U.

> taking the (X)HTML DTDs, adding non-standards
> stuff and pretending it's still standard (X)HTML.

Nobody proposed to "pretend" something, for starters
the validator ignores the system ID for most public
IDs it knows, the DTD would be "SYSTEM something" as
in my XHTML IRI experiment:

<URL:http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fhmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz.googlepages.com%2FIDN-IRI-test.html>

| This Page Is Valid http://purl.net/xyzzy/-xhtml1-i18n.dtd!

No "valid XHTML icon" offered.  If I want more I can
submit the DTD in an experimental Internet Draft to
register a public ID, and after that I could try to
persuade you to add it to your collection.  

A future RFC 3987 "interoperability report" based on
syntactically invalid documents would be rather odd.

So far neither ICANN (for their IDN Wiki) nor Martin
(for 3987bis) made noises that they need this.  The
ICANN-folks fixed their invalid URIs, good enough.

> my point is that it would be badly deceptive to talk
> of custom DTDs to someone who does not.

I've no idea what "AUTOCOMPLETE" is, maybe it is just
irrelevant and hurting interoperability.  Maybe it is
important for some applications but not really hurting
interoperability for others.  I can't judge it, the
persons going to the trouble to use a custom DTD have
to decide why they are doing it.  

For <embed> I'd say that it's rather harmless, and I
used it recently in a context where "validity" would
be beside the point.  (Google gadget with Javascript,
maybe I'll test their Flash-API, and maybe that API
creates <embed> again on the fly if needed, where no
validator ignoring Javascript can see it).

I'm not going to use <embed> on ordinary pages, let
alone use a custom DTD for it, as explained some days
ago here, but that's my decision - other users might
have legit cases justifying other decisions.

As far as validators are concerned, their task is to
find syntax errors based on a DTD or "something".  
I'm happy that I can test KML and opensearch files
at http://feedvalidator.org>, and I'm happy that I
can test all pages of small "sites" at WDG.  

> IMHO pointing toward the HTML5 effort and its 
> in-progress status, which indeed is the source of 
> this thread (the original poster meant “why is this
> not validating now that it's going to be in HTML5”,
> I gather) would be much more constructive than
> giving people custom DTDs and letting them think
> they have valid HTML.

I lost all interest in HTML5 when I heard about the
"ping" attribute, I like XHTML better than HTML, and
I'm not pointing folks in directions I don't believe
in.  I asked Jukka (not the OP) if that is a bug
with a number, because it's an ugly validator bug.

 Frank

Received on Sunday, 20 January 2008 13:12:26 UTC