Additional checks can follow a similar strategy to that of the RSS validator, as Mark Pilgrim had documented in his Inside the RSS Validator column.

We hope that this change will lead to constructive early public feedback. I was right in that assumption.

Meanwhile, the IETF's aversion to APIs is not without exception: witness GSSAPI. And you wouldn't be alone.

Repeating this mistake will lead to the same result. It is rare enough to be noted.

The warnings were never very well explained or introduced, and some of the warnings about potential accessibility issues such as the lack of background color declaration were confusing.

The syntax is still undefined.

What problem are you trying to solve, and how will you know when you've solved it? They want to know if their documents are correct, that's all.

Standard organizations have an history.

In many cases of technological factionalism the struggle is really over a prize in business competition.

In addition to the progress at an organizational level, there is lots of interesting technical work going on. Specs are not enough.

Writing a technical specification takes times. The question of when and whether to standardize an RDF API has been hanging in the air for a decade or so. Even the best products, software or others, have faults. But I had very strong misgivings about crossing that line. What a meeting to miss: I wrote that this meeting was probably one of the most important ac meetings in the last eight years. But maybe we were in "mostly harmless" or "first do no harm" mode, letting the market establish what's really needed.

explain some subtleties about evolution of HTML the feedback of the community.

I hope GRDDL and SPARQL will get there soon too. Evolve the validator into more than a validator: what if the validator knew about the prose in the HTML specifications? I will try to create a space where people will find valuable information about the HTML Working Group work.

I look forward to reporting similar initiatives in this forum as we adopt them.

The more, the merrier: if you want to volunteer for another language, please visit the wiki page for translations.

www-html, www-qa, etc. When I run the css-validator I get an error: Exception in thread "main" java.

Comments are welcome here, though we haven't figured out how to address spam without moderating the comments.

Hopefully, the upcoming weeks of Beta test for the new version will help figure out which road to take. It is useful to create an helping tool which gives recommendation depending on the semantics of the feature.

It takes indeed a lot more time to do, it requests more efforts from the Working Group, but it also means easier to use for the Web community in the end. I don't do much of Javascript hacking myself, but I gather it's an unholy mess of incompatibilities.

This may sound a little odd, until one knows precisely what validation is.

But maybe we were in "mostly harmless" or "first do no harm" mode, letting the market establish what's really needed.

Sometimes a mediocre standard is better than no standard. One of the fundamental choices of creating XML was to remove the data jail created by some application or programming languages.