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

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

From: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:30:56 -0400
Message-ID: <4A32C910.1070809@mozilla.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
On 6/12/09 5:20 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> 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?
>    

Don't turn the question around. He asked how change will benefit him. It 
should be easy to answer.

- Rob
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 21:31:35 GMT

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