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 14:44:04 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0906121444m693b5573jaa91a0aaa6408c52@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Rob Sayre<rsayre@mozilla.com> wrote:
> 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.

Well, the question didn't seem to be as much "what good would it be to
abolish <font> from the web". That question seems easy to answer.

I interpreted the question as "why do we discuss what's conformant and
non-conformant if a lot of people are not going care about the
difference". My answer to that is "because some are going to care". If
that's not a good enough answer then I'd like to hear proposals for
what to do instead.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 21:44:57 GMT

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