W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > June 2009

[Bug 7034] authoring conformance requirements in the spec should either be removed or replaced

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:15:44 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1MHb8K-0001kf-RH@wiggum.w3.org>

Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |rubys@intertwingly.net

--- Comment #13 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>  2009-06-19 10:15:43 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> In my opinion, this bug should be closed. If anyone would like to raise real
> issues with conformance requirements, or even make a sincere suggestion that
> authoring conformance requirements should be removed, then that would be a
> reasonable bug report. This bug report is just ridiculous and insulting.

The current title (not set by me) reads "authoring conformance requirements in
the spec should either be removed or replaced".  Rob Sayre seems sincere in
that suggestion.  In my opinion, Maciej's concerns are addressed by this
change... Maciej: do you agree?

In my opinion, this bug report would be strengthened by mentioning one or more
tools that are impacted adversely by these Author conformance requirements.

It would also be helpful to discuss whether things like misnested elements
"<b><i>foo</b></i>" and &foo= in href values should be considered harmful. 
Having authoring /tools/ (as contrasted with hand-authored markup) emit such is
often a sign of deeper issues.

My own personal opinion is that the current conformance requirements are
judgment calls and seem to focus more on the ideal held by a some as to how
hand-authored content should look.  I've seen plenty of evidence that dropping
quotes around attribute values causes problems, and meta charset is a
consequence of that.  If the conformance requirements were more comprehensive,
and split into categories (example: those issues that are indicative of
structural problems, markup that has proven to be error prone, and markup where
there are preferred alternatives), I could be happy with that too.  Meanwhile,
consider me as one of those who are unhappy with the current draft in this

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 Friday, 19 June 2009 10:15:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:30:37 UTC