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: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:59:40 -0400
Message-ID: <4A361B8C.8050905@intertwingly.net>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> Rob Sayre wrote:
>>> On 6/9/09 10:52 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>> Rob Sayre wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/09 6:02 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>>>> Why reference the Mozilla API? I'm assuming because it drives the
>>>>>> Mozilla editor, as well as the browser, which puts the API into the
>>>>>> conforming author territory, while still being part of a user agent.
>>>>> That's a good point. Just more fallout from the ridiculous author
>>>>> conformance requirements. Pseudo-intellectual ideas about "semantic markup"
>>>>> just don't buy you that much as requirements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like anything else, some HTML files are better crafted than others, but
>>>>> conformance requirements should address showstoppers.
>>>> Are there MUSTs in the current spec that the Mozilla foundation is
>>>> unlikely to ever implement?  Can they be identified specifically?
>>> Yes, most of the authoring requirements are meaningless or at least
>>> pointless. I hope you can forgive me for failing to produce an exhaustive
>>> list, but the subject of this message is a good example.
>> Just to be clear: the subject of this messages is an example of something
>> that absolutely prevent one or more products that aspires to be HTML 5
>> conformant from ever being so?  Do I have this correct?  Do others at
>> Mozilla agree?
> 
> While I think it's an interesting idea, I'm not convinced it's
> practical. I certainly agree that author conformance is a very weak
> concept, and that most authors are not going to care if leave the spec
> the way it is, or if we leave it up to the community to create some
> sort of lint too, or if we say nothing about what is conformant and
> what is not.
> 
> But I'm actually more worried about how the standards community would
> cope. Though it's entirely possible to it'd cope better than it does
> now (avoiding rat-hole about what should be valid and what shouldn't).
> 
> Another problem that we'd have to solve is what recommendations to
> give to authoring tools. Right now we can tell them to output
> conforming documents, but if that concept disappears we'd have to
> replace it with something else.

Forgive me, it is not clear to me how that response relates to my questions.

Is there or is there not any product produced by Mozilla foundation that 
would be considered to be an authoring tool or markup generator that can 
be used to produce markup containing a font element?

> / Jonas

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 15 June 2009 10:00:20 GMT

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