Hi Folks On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 13:55 -0500, Mark Stosberg wrote: > > Although looking at the bigger picture... How bad would it be to demand > > more compliant HTML from ValidateRM users? After all, it's a little bit > > like having "use strict;". > > It's certainly a best practice to have valid XHTML, but it may not always be > the case, especially in development, or consider an application that has > legacy > HTML, but you want to switch the backend to use better tools, like ValidateRM. > > Dynamic pages can be particularly tricky to make perfectly compliant, as > different variations of HTML may be pushed out depending on the query. > > I definitely vote for continuing on in the spirit of HTML::Parser and > allowing for "real world" HTML as much as possible.
The question is, as I see it, which module should be used to enforce strictness (after you decide that's what you want to do). Surely there are enough XML-oriented tools available to do this. I don't see it as the role of either HTML::Parser::Simple or Data::FormValidator::*. -- Ron Savage [email protected] http://savage.net.au/index.html ##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################ ## ## ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ## ## ## ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ## ## ################################################################
