[whatwg] several messages about XML syntax and HTML5
bhawkeslewis at googlemail.com
Mon Dec 18 12:58:15 PST 2006
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 12:28 -0800, Aankhen wrote:
> On 12/18/06, Alexey Feldgendler <alexey at feldgendler.ru> wrote:
> > Maybe the other way round? "Valid [X]HTML" on valid documents?
> That seems reasonable; if it were unobtrusive, most users would just
> ignore it, but it'd be there for anyone who wanted to know.
The problem with this is it doesn't provide as much of an incentive for
people to fix their markup as the fear (which you just expressed) that
users might be scared of their "corrupted" or "invalid" or "warning"
HTML does. (Actually I suspect many users would ignore both sets of
notices since they wouldn't know what they mean. It's the psychological
effect on authors that's really crucial.)
But it would still be better than nothing.
More information about the whatwg