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

Re: &foo= in attribute values (and why defining conformance matters)

From: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:49:43 -0400
Message-ID: <4A32DB87.3030505@mozilla.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html@w3.org

On 6/12/09 6:22 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> It defines what QA tools like conformance checkers

Oh, I forgot to mention: "conformance checker" is an incredibly vapid 
piece of newspeak. They're only checking "conformance" because you 
classified large parts of the working, interoperable grammar as such.

- Rob

Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 22:50:22 GMT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Boris Zbarsky: "Re: What is the value of conformance? (was RE: <font color="blue"> (was ISSUE-32))"
Previous message: John Foliot: "RE: <font color="blue"> (was ISSUE-32)"
In reply to: Ian Hickson: "&foo= in attribute values (and why defining conformance matters)"
Next in thread: Michael(tm) Smith: "Re: &foo= in attribute values (and why defining conformance matters)"
Reply: Michael(tm) Smith: "Re: &foo= in attribute values (and why defining conformance matters)"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:40:34 GMT