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

Re: conformance (was Re: Review of 3.15.1. The table element)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:44:09 -0500
To: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Cc: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>, gonchuki <gonchuki@gmail.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1187887449.29837.1291.camel@pav>

On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 00:09 +1000, Ben Boyle wrote:
> On 8/23/07, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:
> > is nonetheless important : can a certain markup style be
> > "non-conforming" (rather than "deprecated") if it not
> > consistent with WCAG guidelines but is consistent with
> > HTML 5 syntax ?
> 
> I'm not sure. Do the following all mean different things?
> 1. valid HTML5
> 2. conforming HTML5
> 3. WCAG conformance
> 
> Valid HTML4/XHTML1 and WCAG compliance are currently different things.
> I'm not sure where "conformance" fits into the picture, but have an
> inkling it falls between the two (if so, not sure how useful I'll
> personally find that as an author).
> 
> Or is conformance more about when HTML error handling kicks in (i.e.
> to handle non-conforming content). Something entirely different? I
> read 1.3 in the spec, it didn't simplify it for me.
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#conformance
> 
> Can we get a clear definition of "conformance" and have that added to
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#terminology

If you provide suggested text, I expect the editors to consider it.

Otherwise, I suppose the editors have already done their best
to be clear.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 16:44:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:04 GMT