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

Re: 9. WYSIWYG editor (enforcing the signature)

From: Mihai Sucan <mihai.sucan@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:06:17 +0300
To: "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.twmrkrhtmcpsjgr0b0dp@localhost.localdomain>

Le Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:32:00 +0300, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> a écrit:

> Le 4 août 2007 à 05:56, Ian Hickson a écrit :
>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Mihai Sucan wrote:
>>> I have read the HTML 5 spec section on WYSIWYG editors [1] and I'd like
>>> to express my concern on requiring the inclusion of "(WYSIWYG editor)"
>>> in the META NAME="generator" CONTENT attribute value.
>> 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,
> It has nothing to do with wysiwyg editors, it is more about the quality  
> of the code as defined by a professional corpus. It is interesting to  
> see that here a form of versioning is coming back by the backdoor.
> I would suggest that once "HTML 5 for Authors" is done, the document  
> could carry.
> 	 <meta name="conform" content="html5-bp">
> html5-bp = HTML 5 Best Practices. It would acknowledge a set of rules  
> defined by the Web community and considered as "good HTML".

In my opinion, an HTML document should not contain "claims" about the  
quality/correctness of its code.

That's just like asking a seller of a commercial product about the product  
quality. He'll always answer it's the best.

You cannot trust any claims. But ... if anything like this gets in the  
spec, then many/some people who are not experienced enough *will* in fact  
trust such claims, and they'll make decisions based on such claims, in  
their sites, in their tools, parsers, etc.

I do not recommend adding anything like this into the spec.

As for establishing a set of rules which define "good HTML", this can be  
done, either by the community, either by the spec. However, the rules  
should only have an informative role, a role which helps validator tools /  
conformance checker tools to tell the Web authors if their document  
conforms to the best practices ("good HTML"). Yet, don't allow the authors  
to say "yikes! my HTML is awesome!" in a meta-tag.

Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 09:06:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC