W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

Re: some conformance questions

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:30:30 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikCX2ZgnJvDWqUhLjK1FaARe2WV-FOOTfv-aKv6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
I have been asking why are these things considered valid, people have been
providing answers thanks to those that have done so with a minimum of snark.

I have not asked to make anything invalid.
I may consider pursuing the tables without <th> trigger a warning if it is
turns out that the vast majority of tables without headers are indeed layout
tables as using tables for layout is a conformance error i beleieve.

regards
Stevef

On 17 June 2010 16:24, Daniel Glazman <
daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:

> Le 17/06/10 17:09, Steven Faulkner a écrit :
>
>
>  >Are you seriously asking to make about:blank invalid ???
>> reponses minus the attitude would be preferred.
>>
>
> Uh?
> Please answer: are you asking to make about:blank invalid and
> content-empty templates not conforming?
>
> Your questions about conformance are putting at risk:
>
> - templates
> - about:blank
> - wysiwyg conforming editors
> - dynamic web-apps
> - collaborative editing
> - HTML as an exchange data format
>
> Hum, to say the least...
>
> </Daniel>
>
>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 15:31:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:18 UTC