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

Re: Support Existing Content

From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 11:21:59 +0100
Message-Id: <9C74D35B-C2F0-4A95-A485-CEEFA52C8DC9@gmail.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, matt@builtfromsource.com, public-html@w3.org
To: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>


On 4 May 2007, at 11:03, James Graham wrote:

> Gareth Hay wrote:
>> On 4 May 2007, at 10:30, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> I think that the situation we have just now is untenable.
>>>
>>> What's untenable about it? What is the actual harm of  
>>> noncomforming content that you're trying to solve?
>> You don't think tag-soup is harmful at all?
>
> That's not an answer. Can you _please_ try answering the questions  
> people ask you (I tried asking several, most of which were  
> ignored). They are not intended rhetoric but an attempt to  
> ascertain the technical motivation behind your position. If you  
> keep avoiding them, it is hard not to feel that your position is  
> not based on technical reasoning but in a set of rigid axiomatic  
> beliefs, making the whole discussion rather pointless.
>
It is an answer, maybe not the one you /want/ unless you want me to   
take Option #2.

Why does there need to be a technical motivation behind my position.
I think I have explained my position over and over and over, and /I/  
think that it is the other side that is failing to see my reasoning.

Maciej has hypothesised that people will be harmed by error handling  
in a "draconian" method.
I have tried to explain and explain and explain that I don't think  
this reasoning is correct, as problems are caught at source and solved.

To go back to the original q
>>> What's untenable about it? What is the actual harm of  
>>> noncomforming content that you're trying to solve?
Non-confirming content /is/ the harm.

I have also asked several questions with an aim to reaching  
consensus, but these seem to be ignored in favour of trying to beat  
down my position, again.

As requested before, could we actually have some sort of survey to  
establish the numbers behind the various kinds of error handling  
proposed?

/please/
Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 10:23:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:58 GMT