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 16:36:00 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1MHh4K-0006DZ-K0@wiggum.w3.org>

--- Comment #16 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  2009-06-19 16:36:00 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (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?

The title now strikes a more appropriate tone. But it's still not specific
enough. It's like having a bug report that says "the spec should be changed".

Sam, you listed a grab gab of conformance requirements which should maybe be
strengthened or relaxed, but it's not clear to me if this matches the set that
Mike or Rob were concerned about. And my impression is that Rob would like
*all* authoring conformance requirements removed, not just modified.

What we could use is bug reports or tracker issues that suggest (a) removing
all authoring conformance requirements; or (b) removing specific authoring
conformance requirements; or (c) changing specific conformance requirements in
particular ways. For example, "<font> should be conforming" would be
sufficiently specific to drive useful discussion.

As it stands, everyone has a different idea of what this bug means, so we can't
tell when it is addressed.

(Side note: I personally think at least some of the authoring conformance
requirements should be relaxed. I used to think removing all of them made
sense, but Henri convinced me otherwise. I'm not sure if the set I think should
go matches anyone else's, so I can't tell if agree with the substance of this
bug or not. This is why concrete issues would be much more helpful than this
vague meta-bug.)

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 16:36:07 UTC

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