[whatwg] Re: Doctype FPI
ian at hixie.ch
Thu Aug 26 05:35:23 PDT 2004
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, James Graham wrote:
> I agree with your points but not the conclusion that you draw. In order
> to conclude that automated syntax checking tools (aka 'validators') are
> harmful, you must believe that the average quality of documents produced
> in the complete absence of a validator would be better than the average
> quality of the documents produced when a limited degree of automatic
> validation is possible.
Yeah, you may have a point there.
> Your concerns can be somewhat alleviated by providing a validation
> service but:
> - Noting the limitations of the validator
> - Not providing a badge to indicate valid markup
And also making it check for things beyond what DTDs and Schemas can check
I guess we now have the founding principles for a WHATWG validator tool!
> I should just note that I believe that incorrect semantics are often
> (perhaps even usually) more harmful than incorrect syntax.
Absolutely. Incorrect syntax can have defined error-handling behaviour.
Incorrect semantics can only rarely be detected at all.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg