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

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

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:23:08 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270906141323m22921983yc0bfed8a1e5e82d8@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, public-html@w3.org
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> 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.
>
>

Just to clarify my own understanding of what you're saying here,
you're talking about removing most, if not all, of the conformance
requirements in the HTML5 specification, either completely, or to a
separate Best Practices guide. Or at least, conformance requirements
as they may pertain to the use of obsolete, deprecated, or new
elements and attributes?

Am I reading your comment correctly, Sam?

Shelley
Received on Sunday, 14 June 2009 20:23:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:04 UTC