- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 11:57:10 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7034 --- Comment #32 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 2010-03-21 11:57:09 --- Clear statement of the problem: The overwhelming majority of the Author Conformance Requirements that are contained in the spec cover situations that pose no real interoperability problems. Not only is this an incorrect application of RFC 2119, as a strategy, it is entirely self-defeating. Specs that contain such requirements will be willfully, flagrantly, and widely violated. Furthermore, such requirements that have no basis in interop issues and describe situations that either authors or tools will commonly violate cause validators to produce volumes of spurious issues that only serve to obscure real problems. Specifically problematic are the Author Conformance Requirements that essentially treat the web as being versioned and/or define personal preferences which are not universally shared. It simply is not a viable strategy to revisit the web every decade or so and declare documents that conform to recommendations that were made as little as a decade ago as now non-conformant without a clear and significant problem. As an example: "CSS would be better" is not such a problem. Issue: Author Conformance Requirements exist in the spec for which there is no documented rationale and over which there is no consensus. Sections affected: Effectively the whole specification. One suggested way to solve the problem: Remove and and all author conformance requirements which cover markup that poses no significant interop issues. Additional analysis can be found here: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/HTML5_Authoring_Conformance_Study#Methodology -- 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 Sunday, 21 March 2010 11:57:11 UTC