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

[Bug 11206] Presentational tag [font,b,u,i] CANNOT be removed for many reasons. Three scenarios very good scenarios: 1. HTML5 Mobile sites with BlackBerry8xxx and 9xxx support 2. HTML5 Emails 3. Legacy content 4. Injected legacy content via iframe/scripts 1) Producin

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 22:34:40 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PEUro-0007QA-34@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11206

--- Comment #7 from Fred P <fprog@hotmail.com> 2010-11-05 22:34:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Then people ignore the strict modes and still get to claim that their code
> validates.  Instead, HTML5 is trying to only have a strict mode,
> and people can either follow recommended coding practices
> or decide they don't care about the validator.

Or they can follow recommended coding practices, brag about being fully
conformant, and their work does not even cover weird use cases.

Remembers me a sales guy, who said they had 
this "super HTML5 mobile website framework"...
but they only support the iPhone.

When asked about Blackberry support?
"Yeah, it works fine!!! I'm telling you!"
Their mobile version looked like crap on BlackBerry as in "unusable".

> If this helps you convince your boss or client that you should
> follow better coding practice, or helps convince Blackberry
> to support CSS, great.

Well, you are dreaming in blue color for sure.

This statement sounds like: 
"If this helps you convince MS Office team
to support a native version working on Linux", great!

Even, if tomorrow I convince BlackBerry to fully support HTML5/CSS3,
all the existing phones still won't work properly.

> I don't fully agree with this approach,
> but it's been discussed a lot and is unlikely to change. 
> (I'd have preferred warnings for presentational elements.)

If people prefer transitional, then this means only one thing,
it's more practical for them, purist can go in strict mode if they want to.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/432933/will-html-5-validation-be-worth-the-candle

I guess we will have to create our own HTML5 transitional validator,
for the practical people.

The goal of validation is to know,
if the website will work reliably across all browsers.

The point of conformance becomes purely useless,
when having different validators complaining about different parts, 
either using recent HTML5/XHTML1 feature, or older HTML4 feature,
while it works (as in display pixel-perfect) in all browsers
and mobile phones (and a very good best effort in CSS disabled mode).
It becomes useless "noise", when the goal is actually to find "real issues"
quickly.

If you have a perfectly validating HTML5/CSS3, 
but it does not work on IE6, IE7 and BlackBerry 
then your web site is useless for Business people.

-- 
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, 5 November 2010 22:34:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 5 November 2010 22:34:49 GMT