- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:50:47 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7034
Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|mike@w3.org |dave.null@w3.org
--- Comment #3 from Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org> 2009-06-18 13:50:46 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The role of the specification in providing appropriate normative advice for
> authors, authoring tools, dynamic HTML generation tools and others that wish to
> be "conservative in what they send" is a legitimate question. Because many web
> "authors" might not pay attention to such advice is no reason not to provide it
> or proof that such advice is useless or worthy of ridicule.
If you're concerned that the existence of this particular bugzilla issue is
somehow an attempt to suggest that such advice is useless, I think you can rest
assured that it is not. As far as I can see at least, the context isn't at all
about what whether such advice is useful; the context instead is general
agreement that such advice is in fact very useful, but with disagreement about
what the specific nature and scope of that advice should be -- with some
(arguably lame) attempts at humor (not ridicule) thrown in.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 13:50:53 UTC