On 26 July 2013 13:58, David M. Lloyd <david.ll...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 07/26/2013 04:39 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote: >> >> Its websites and >> browsers that define what should be accepted as HTML, not standards. > > This is the craziest thing I've read all week.
What percentage of the worlds websites contain valid HTML/XHTML according to the DOCTYPE/validator? I'd be amazed if its more than 1%. The Oracle home page, java.net, java.com and J2SE download page all fail validation. Yet all are perfactly usable websites. RedHat: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fredhat.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.3+http%3A%2F%2Fvalidator.w3.org%2Fservices JBoss: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jboss.org%2Foverview%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.3+http%3A%2F%2Fvalidator.w3.org%2Fservices Tim Berners Lee said in the linked article: "Some things are clearer with hindsight of several years. It is necessary to evolve HTML incrementally. The attempt to get the world to switch to XML, including quotes around attribute values and slashes in empty tags and namespaces all at once didn't work". This isn't Java EE. HTML is a space where standards are a *guide*. I absolutely stand by my statement. Stephen
