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

Re: table layout conformance

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:09:31 +0200
Message-ID: <4C1A56CB.6020506@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Le 17/06/10 18:45, Edward O'Connor a écrit :

> Only some author conformance requirements are machine-checkable. This

Then they cannot be enforced and are useless. They can even be harmful
from a REC track point of view.

> is one of the ones that isn't. Are you objecting to the presence of
> any non-machine-checkable author conformance criteria? If so, please
> see this comment on the relevant Bugzilla bug:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7034#c35

Yes I am.

Let me give you such an author-related criterium from the HTML4 spec:
authors should not use the class attribute to simulate their own markup.
Fine. "should not" is fine here. But it's not a conformance criterium
because it cannot be one.
The "non-conforming" statement previously mentioned on table layout is
exactly of the same kind: it should be a strong authoring recommendation
but it cannot be a criterium of conformance ; because it's not machine-
checkable, nobody will care and editing tools will be unable to deal
with it. There will also be edge cases where one says it's
non-conforming and others say it is. Chaos.

</Daniel>
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 17:10:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:10 GMT