- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:56:06 +0200
- To: "Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: "Geoffrey Sneddon" <foolistbar@googlemail.com>, www-archive@w3.org
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:28:28 +0200, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> wrote: > Le 20 juin 2007 à 04:17, Anne van Kesteren a écrit : >> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:35:56 +0200, Geoffrey Sneddon >> <foolistbar@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> I too think that this should remain conforming. I do, however, think >>> that the tutorial should teach all elements to be closed, ... >> >> I don't think there should be such a thing as "_the_ tutorial", to be >> honest. Tutorials, like all other implementations of the specification, >> are something to compete on I think. > > Is it your personal opinion or Opera's one? I don't think Opera has an opinion on tutorials. > Could you explain the rationale for this position? (having an official > tutorial, do not forbid people to write books in any case.) The rationale is that the official tutorial will always be deferred to as the "correct" one. Where in fact any tutorial that stays within the limits of the specification is correct. This issue has arisen with conformance checkers before. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 08:56:14 UTC