- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 19:30:39 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Julian Reschke wrote: > Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> If you don't make the processing requirements normative, then UAs can >> just implement whatever they like and claim conformance. That doesn't >> help anyone at all, it just leaves us with the same situation we're in >> now. We're trying to fix the problem, not just ignore it. > > If the processing requirements are written and agreed upon, and > implemented by Apple/MS/Mozilla/Opera, it really makes no difference in > practice what normative status they have. Good specifications must contain normative requirements. http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1140242962&count=1 > What's *essential* is that an author of a *conforming* document can rely > on a well-defined behavior. If an author chooses to produce > non-conforming documents, that's her/his choice. No, what is essential is that users who visit web sites, regardless of whether the site is conforming or not, can rely on it rendering in their browser, the same as it would in any other. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 09:30:52 UTC