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

Re: <font color="blue"> (was ISSUE-32)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:52:31 -0400
Message-ID: <4A2F1FEF.3010905@intertwingly.net>
To: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
CC: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Rob Sayre wrote:
> On 6/9/09 6:02 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> Why reference the Mozilla API? I'm assuming because it drives the
>> Mozilla editor, as well as the browser, which puts the API into the
>> conforming author territory, while still being part of a user agent.
> 
> That's a good point. Just more fallout from the ridiculous author 
> conformance requirements. Pseudo-intellectual ideas about "semantic 
> markup" just don't buy you that much as requirements.
> 
> Like anything else, some HTML files are better crafted than others, but 
> conformance requirements should address showstoppers.

Are there MUSTs in the current spec that the Mozilla foundation is 
unlikely to ever implement?  Can they be identified specifically?

Note: I am not suggesting that Mozilla or anybody has a special role or 
any sort of veto authority, but if it is the case that there is 
something specific that Mozilla is unlikely to ever implement, it seems 
plausible to me that other browser manufacturers might feel likewise, 
and that ultimately such statements will make consensus on the spec 
difficult to obtain.

> - Rob

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 02:53:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:38 GMT