- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 06:07:55 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068 --- Comment #57 from Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> 2010-08-24 06:07:53 --- > Hey. Can we quote you on that in other threads? Sure. > (Advocatus Diaboli) Why does it matter when <noscript> gets deprecated when the > whole construct was non-conforming (because of X-Frame-Options) anyway? That's exactly the point. Deprecated something that authors find useful without providing an alternative just means authors will ignore these warnings as validator spam. Worse, folks that pay attention to validator warning will be SOL. -- 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 Tuesday, 24 August 2010 06:07:56 UTC