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

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

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:20:28 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0906121420l587d21fdr87041f96ef53b34c@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:08 PM, John Foliot<jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Rob Sayre wrote:
>>
>> Even in other cases, meeting the author requirments will often provide
>> no appreciable benefit. For example, http://www.google.com uses a font
>> element to render the list of advanced options to the right of the
>> search box. I am not sure how changing that page to be valid HTML5 would
>> make it better.
>>
>
> Which brings *me* back to my ongoing question: why should we care about
> validity (conformance)?  Google doesn't and it does not seem to be
> impeding them any.  It makes the discussion surrounding @summary et al
> moot: if I continue to use @summary in an HTML5 the document it's
> non-conforming.  So what?  It works for my intended audience, and that
> trumps some ideal of conformance that seems to be almost meaningless in
> practice.  I get that it is "bad", but what does "bad" get me (vs. what
> being "good" will get me)?

So what do you suggest we do?

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 21:21:25 GMT

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