Re: Audience Based Validator User Interface (ISSUE-206)

apologies

first sentence shoudl read

" I use adobe dreamweaver as it provides a range of tools to aid me in code
editing, it allows me to create HTML5 documents. i assume it cannot be
considered as conforming HTML5 authoring tool, because I often use it to
create, save and publish non confroming HTML5 documents."


regards
stevef


On 5 August 2012 19:28, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ben,
>
> >Can you give an example of desirable/necessary/inevitable behavior
> >that you think would be disallowed by the current requirements but
> >allowed by this change?
>
>
>  I use adobe dreamweaver as it provides a range of tools to aid me in code
> editing, it allows me to create HTML5 documents. i assume it cannot be
> considered as conforming HTML5 document because I often i create save and
> publish non confroming HTML5 documents.
>
> A developer at any point in the document edting lifecycle may want to save
> and publish a HTML5 document that is non conforming for various reasons.
> A developer may want to inlcude 3rd part scirpted widgets in a HTML5
> document, for example they use a DOJO widget which contains custom
> attributes.
>
> in any of the above a conforming HTML5 authoring tool would be useless if
> it could not emit the documents.
>
> regards
> Stevef
>
>
> On 5 August 2012 18:59, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I would suggest replacing the current MUST emit conforming HTML5
>> documents
>> > with 'MUST allow and should encourage authors to produce conforming
>> > documents'.
>>
>> Can you give an example of desirable/necessary/inevitable behavior
>> that you think would be disallowed by the current requirements but
>> allowed by this change?
>>
>> > I am aware of this and am not talking about the cases where author
>> intent is
>> > not known or not discernable. I agree that as much guidance as is
>> necessary
>> > is provided to authoring tool vendors , but to say "HTML5 authoring
>> tools
>> > MUST NOT emit documents that do not conform to HTML5" is taking
>> theortical
>> > purity to its limits. It is just not practical in any sense to expect
>> any
>> > authoring tool to abide by this condition. If I am incorrect in this
>> > assumption I am happy to be disabused.
>>
>> If that quotation were all the spec said, I'd definitely agree, but
>> the spec goes on to add all sorts of qualifications (unquoted) that
>> lessen the impossibility of that MUST. It's not clear to me what
>> precisely you think is insufficient about those qualifications. Can
>> you elaborate?
>>
>> --
>> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
>>
>
>
>
<http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html>