W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: "downplayed errors"

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:47:09 +0200
Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DB9787B9-36AE-47CA-BDB2-CB1892B9C893@iki.fi>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>

On Feb 10, 2009, at 04:18, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:55:19 +0200, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>  
> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 5, 2009, at 11:44, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>
>>> A partial approach is to provide a document like Mike's, which  
>>> says "as an author, use this stuff and you will be fine (but note  
>>> that you may meet other stuff, and the main spec normatively  
>>> defines what to do with it", along with the spec that says "all of  
>>> this other stuff might appear and here is what to do with it".
>>
>> From the point of view of a validator developer, placing stuff into  
>> another document doesn't help, since the validator developer still  
>> needs to understand what the specs made conforming and what non- 
>> conforming.
>
> Right. But I don't think Mike's approach is meant to help a  
> validator developer - you should read the full spec.

Right. My point is that it isn't at all clear what functional outcomes  
people want when suggesting something be put in a document like H:TML  
or suggest that something be deprecated. When others then read these  
statements with their own presuppositions of what functional outcomes  
are implied, miscommunication happens.

> For example, I think we could get consensus that img with no al  
> attribute is "conformant but not recommended". I don't think we will  
> get consensus that img with no alt is conformant and recommended,  
> and I am dubious about consensus that it is non-conformant.

I think this WG should wait for the group defining ATAG to come to a  
consensus on what they want ATAG to say before revisiting that  
permathread. (So that we can then ensure that our syntactic  
conformance is broad enough to allow the ATAG advice to be followed  
without violating requirements of HTML 5.)

>> In the case of HTML 4.01, deprecation meant the creation of two  
>> distinct validation targets: Transitional and Strict. Experience  
>> with HTML 4.01 shows that authors prefer the more permissive target.
>
> What experience exactly?

Actual frequency of use on the Web as reported e.g. in
http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/mama-markup-report-part-1-the-basics/

> Mine it shows that authors more often *use* the more permissive  
> target. Asserting from that what they prefer is unsound logic. You  
> may have additional evidence for your statement, but you should  
> either adduce it or clarify your terms.

I meant preference in the what they do sense instead of what they say  
sense. If an author (or a tool vendor vicariously for the author)  
chooses Transitional over Strict, (s)he clearly prefers Transitional  
given all the constraints that apply when deciding. (It doesn't matter  
much what they say they would prefer absent actual constraints.)

>> For HTML5, I'd like to avoid the introduction of multiple  
>> validation targets if feasible even if that meant making the one  
>> target lenient about stuff like <img border=0> and <applet>.
>
> Fair enough. I would like HTML5 to clearly push against such things.  
> The point of the working group is to reach consensus on our various  
> and desires.

Do you mean you would push against making <img border=0> and <applet>  
conforming?

What's the benefit of saying that e.g. the kind of usage seen at http://demo.opera-mini.net/demo.html 
  is non-conforming? Or saying that various copy-paste-ready badges  
shouldn't use border=0?

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 07:47:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:01 UTC