W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: 9. WYSIWYG editor (enforcing the signature)

From: Jon Barnett <jonbarnett@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 20:28:45 -0500
Message-ID: <bde87dd20708031828t7cabebd1o972ee2a726f5f739@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Mihai Sucan" <mihai.sucan@gmail.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>

On 8/3/07, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> I agree; in fact at this point I don't think anyone thinks it's a good
> idea. We still need a better solution for handling the two tiers of
> document quality, one targetting humans (who can know what they mean) and
> one targetting today's computers (who rarely know what humans mean), but
> I'm not sure what it is. One possibility I've considered is to just have
> two conformance levels, "conforming html5 document" and "conforming
> low-quality html5 document", with <font>, style="", and
> <div>s-containing-inlines kicking documents into the second category.
>
> Either way, the "(WYSIWYG editor)" generator flag will definitely be
> dropped in due course.

I suggest the words "loose" and/or "strict" as opposed to
"low-quality".  You mentioned why "transitional" is not an appropriate
word, but "loose" doesn't have that problem.

One will always be able to compose a low-quality document and meet all
computer-verifiable conformance requirements.  Conversely, one
shouldn't assume "high-quality" by virtue of passing machine
validation.

-- 
Jon Barnett
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2007 01:28:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:48 UTC