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

Re: keep conformance objective (detailed review of section 1. Introduction)

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:26:55 +0800
To: "Philip TAYLOR" <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.ty6czxc1wxe0ny@widsith.local>

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 10:20:14 +0200, Philip TAYLOR  
<Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org> wrote:

> Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
>
>  > This makes it impossible to require semantic elements to be used for
>  > their semantics. This would allow me to do something like <h1>This is
>  > nice large text, which isn't a header</h1> in a conformant HTML 5
>  > document. We need to require things like this, even if it is  
> impossible
>  > to check these electronically.
>
> This can qualify only as a "should".  If it can't be checked
> programatically, it can't be a "must".

If we want it to be a must, we can make it so. What Dan is asking is that  
we agree to your statement and make it a principle.

I don't think the spec is useful without giving authors and developers of  
authoring tools clear guidance on what they should do (I see no reason at  
all to exempt authoring tool developers from requirements or  
recommendations that we impose on authors, BTW). Given that we do that in  
a way that makes it clear that it is bad not to do things you should do, I  
agree with the proposal.

Cheers

Chaals

-- 
   Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
chaals@opera.com   http://snapshot.opera.com - Kestrel (9.5α1)
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 09:27:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:49 UTC