- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:29:58 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
My personal opinion, which I think I stated a long time ago when Rob Sayre first brought up this topic, is that I'd prefer to get rid of all the authoring conformance requirements. There simply is too much controversy for too little value to make this worth it for us. Instead we should leave it up to lint tools to create best practices. This not only saves us a bunch of work, it also gives lint tool authors more freedom to develop whichever practices that they deem suitable. And it supports the multiple conformance classes use case that Larry mentions since different lint tool authors could target different audiences. If I work for a company that simply *hates* the way that <span> elements are spelled, they can develop their own lint tool and verify their own documents using that. They could even create an automatic spider that verifies document and sends an automatic pink slip to any employee that publishes a document with more than 15 <span> elements on the internal cake responsibility rotation intranet website (probably better to use some sort of three-strikes policy though, simply firing someone without warning seems harsh, and probably illegal in most of Europe). / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2010 23:30:50 UTC