W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Normative warnings (was: Re: ACTION-128: Draft @summary voting text in conjunction with PF)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:45:24 +0000 (UTC)
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0907290044200.3189@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:26, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > > 
> > > I don't like downplayed errors. On one hand they want to be errors 
> > > but on the other, they are something that are designed to be easily 
> > > ignorable. I have dragged my feet with them hoping they'd go away. 
> > > One day I almost started implementing them but then I got a 
> > > higher-priority item to deal with.
> > 
> > I've replaced downplayed errors with conforming features that trigger 
> > warnings. I've also taken the opportunity to trim the list of features 
> > that trigger this behaviour, so that we keep it to a minimum.
> 
> I've implemented and deployed the normative warnings at 
> http://html5.validator.nu.
> 
> However, I elected not to implement the following:
> > For example, a validator could report some pages as "Valid HTML5" and 
> > others as "Valid HTML5 with warnings".
> 
> I thought we agreed that we don't want multiple conformance classes.

Multiple conformance classes is exactly what this is. I don't think it's a 
good idea, but it's what we have, if we require warnings, whether we say 
so or not.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 00:46:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:16:04 GMT