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: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 02:41:00 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0906140241y22d6039dte337e67bfe9d3e94@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 6:07 PM, Rob Sayre<rsayre@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>> Keep UA conformance requirements, and write a document for lint tools after
>>> they've competed for a while. imho, the grave concern over preventing typos
>>> looks like a dishonest way of justifying central control. The technical
>>> benefits they might provide are really small, if at all present--it smells
>>> bad.
>>>
>> That'd certainly be another way of doing it. The only difference seems
>> to be that instead of us defining here what is valid and what isn't,
>> we'd leave it up to the community.
>
> This entire debate concerns whether "validity" is an important concept. In
> the context of exhaustive UA requirements, it certainly isn't. Not that it
> ever has been.

Removing the concept of "validity" is certainly an interesting
approach. Though one that I doubt you'd ever get through W3C. I
certainly agree it would remove a lot of rat-hole discussions.

/ Jonas
Received on Sunday, 14 June 2009 09:41:58 GMT

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