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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 07:31:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4A34DFAF.7020202@intertwingly.net>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, public-html@w3.org
Jonas Sicking wrote:
> 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.

If there is consensus, I don't see why it wouldn't fly.

Also: it doesn't completely need to go away.  The current document says 
MUST in places where at best it means SHOULD (at least in the RFC 2119 
sense of the word "there may exist valid reasons in particular 
circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications 
must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different 
course.")

Alternately, the current document contains text that may ultimately be 
split out.  If the authoring conformance requirements were split out 
into what the IETF calls a "Best Current Practices" document, those 
interested in those discussions could proceed separately.




> / Jonas
> 
Received on Sunday, 14 June 2009 11:32:52 GMT

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