W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > July 2000

Re: On ampersands.

From: Shane P. McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 22:49:41 -0500
Message-ID: <396401D5.8DBE0B55@aptest.com>
To: Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@w3.org>
CC: Paul McGarry <paulm@opentec.com.au>, www-validator@w3.org


Gerald Oskoboiny wrote:
> > Seriously, its conformance indications leave a lot to be desired.
> 
> How's that? If it said 'must', it would be incorrect.
> 
> I think the HTML 4 spec(s) are exemplary as far as technical
> specifications go.

Speaking as someone who develops formal test suites for a living, I
think that HTML 4 is a huge improvement over HTML 3.2, but is still
terrible from a conformance perspective.  It uses phrases like "many
browsers do..." or "often this means...". Those are not phrases you
expect to find in a formal standard.  Also, the fact that HTML 4 bent
over backward to accommodate non-visual browsers means that it has
almost no guidance for visual browser creators.  This means that they
are free to implement things pretty much however they wish. That is not
really a good way to promote interoperability and application
portability (where, in this case, an application is an HTML 4 conforming
document).

--
Shane P. McCarron                  phone: +1 763 786-8160
ApTest                               fax: +1 763 786-8180
                                  mobile: +1 612 799-6942
                                  e-mail: shane@aptest.com
Received on Wednesday, 5 July 2000 23:49:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:54 GMT