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

Re: &foo= in attribute values (and why defining conformance matters)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:01:40 -0500
To: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <1245085300.5418.43359.camel@pav.lan>
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 18:25 -0400, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On 6/12/09 6:22 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, John Foliot wrote:
> >   
> > > I pose a serious question: what is the real benefit of making unescaped 
> > > ampersands non-conformant? (Of making anything "non-conformant"?)
> > >     
> > 
> > It defines what QA tools like conformance checkers should highlight as 
> > problems, as an aid to authors who wish to catch mistakes they did not 
> > intend. That's it.
> >   
> 
> That's called a lint tool. You don't understand what MUST means.

I don't doubt that he knows what it means, but I agree he's using
it oddly, which has given me problems in reviewing the spec
all along:

  keep conformance objective (detailed review of section 1.
Introduction)
  From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
  Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:24:25 -0500

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/1187.html


We have a RAISED issue in this area...

  ISSUE-61 conformance-language RAISED
  Conformance depends on author's intent
  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/61

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 15 June 2009 17:01:50 GMT

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