W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > April 2010

[Bug 9530] Validity of meta "pragmas"

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:50:57 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1O2lwf-0004gQ-7G@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9530


Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hsivonen@iki.fi




--- Comment #4 from Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>  2010-04-16 13:50:58 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> My concern is that we have conformance requirements that nobody is aware of
> because validator.nu isn't checking them - this essentially applies to all
> WhatWG-Wiki-based registries. I'd like to find out what's keeping the
> validator.nu developers from implementing these checks (well, besides
> workload). Is checking these registries more complex than checking IANA
> registries?

Validator.nu doesn't support the wiki registries, because during the entire
existence of the registries, a shadow of doubt has hung over the registries. It
hasn't been clear if it is worthwhile to implement support for a particular
registry mechanism if the registry is going to be shot down or delegated to the
IANA by the HTML WG in due course.

This bug report is part of the problem. Not it seems that the reasoning is
circular, so perhaps I should just go ahead and implement support for the
registries to break the cycle.

-- 
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, 16 April 2010 13:51:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 16 April 2010 13:51:03 GMT