W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Audience Based Validator User Interface (ISSUE-206)

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 18:59:19 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEhSh3fbzmv_e8Ri8PTedCEsu=_mHkCfU+iJKP=8-1vRnxQZDg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would suggest replacing the current MUST emit conforming HTML5 documents
> with 'MUST allow and should encourage authors to produce conforming
> documents'.

Can you give an example of desirable/necessary/inevitable behavior
that you think would be disallowed by the current requirements but
allowed by this change?

> I am aware of this and am not talking about the cases where author intent is
> not known or not discernable. I agree that as much guidance as is necessary
> is provided to authoring tool vendors , but to say "HTML5 authoring tools
> MUST NOT emit documents that do not conform to HTML5" is taking theortical
> purity to its limits. It is just not practical in any sense to expect any
> authoring tool to abide by this condition. If I am incorrect in this
> assumption I am happy to be disabused.

If that quotation were all the spec said, I'd definitely agree, but
the spec goes on to add all sorts of qualifications (unquoted) that
lessen the impossibility of that MUST. It's not clear to me what
precisely you think is insufficient about those qualifications. Can
you elaborate?

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2012 18:00:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 5 August 2012 18:00:08 GMT