> From: Tony Gill <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Stu Weibel wrote: (about scheme-scheme HTML-crime)
>
> > I respect the position of Jon and Lauren (and others, undoubtably),
who
> > want approved, parsable HTML, but once again, if the *ONLY* thing in
> > the world that is compromised is validation (and this, only in a
very
> > constrained, arguably parsable way), should this stand in the way of
> > trying to establish a practice that is what we want down the road?
>
> I have to agree with Stuart here, adherence to standards should be a
means to
> an end (or ends), not an end in itself; if the various 'scheme-scheme
kludges'
> work for people/every common browser/robots, should we worry if a few
> validation services pick up on a small number of invisible
HTML-crimes? I
> certainly won't be losing too much sleep over it.
Since I work for a company that has an HTML editor which is based on
SGML (and therefore worries about HTML crimes), to which we wish to add
an easier way for users to edit metadata than popping up an "edit
attributes" dialog box, I would vote for parseability as a minimum. If
we can get the W3C to support our format as well, this would be an added
bonus that we should try for.
> Besides which, as long as a *consistent* approach is used, it should
be
> relatively trivial for your friendly local hacker to practice their
arcane art
> by converting the 'kludges' to a standard format, should consensus be
reached
> at a future date.
I agree. Which was why I would prefer a parseable use of the current
META element now, combined with further work for the future, including
possible additional attributes.
Lauren
--
Dr Lauren Wood, Technical Product Manager, SoftQuad, Inc.
108-10070 King George Hwy, Surrey, B.C., Canada V3T 2W4
[log in to unmask] http://www.sq.com Tel: +1-604-585 8394
|