Tina Holmboe wrote: > On 1 May, Lachlan Hunt wrote: >>> A common set of /bugs/ with which new standards/browsers should be >>> compliant? Did I understand you correctly? >> I meant to say that we need to define the set of features that are >> essential for remaining compatible with the content on the web, which >> is determined by doing research into what browsers do and studying >> the content that exists on the web today. > > In other words the WG is to study, and document, both good and bad > practices of browsers and authors today, and tailor the specification > to allow them? The specification will be tailored to *support* the bad things, which browsers are required to do regardless of what the spec says. However, the spec will not necessarily allow such things in conforming documents. > Much markup on the web today /is/ poor. We /do not/ fix that by > redefining reality to make it /good/. We do not fix it by ignoring it either. >> I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to as I wasn't around when >> HTML 3.2 was developed and I don't know what the process was back then. > > The spec authors looked at what browsers supported, documented it, and > called it a standard. Could you please explain how you think the process should work? -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 13:06:43 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:59:34 GMT