- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:50:58 -0700
- 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 3:03 PM, John Foliot<jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote: > Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:08 PM, John Foliot<jfoliot@stanford.edu> > wrote: >> > >> > 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? >> > > In a perfect world, critical fail is that - critical (if your C+ code is > not conformant, when you go to compile, what happens?) If HTML is as hard to author as C++ is, then I think we have failed. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 23:51:55 UTC