W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > December 2010

[Bug 11540] The willful violation clause is most unwise. A standard should not violate another standard for any reason. This wouls lead to 2 things : 1) Content correctly encoded content would never be displayed correctly. 2) All future standards would need to includ

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 20:18:03 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PSEqR-0005Tn-DM@jessica.w3.org>

Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |shelleyp@burningbird.net

--- Comment #8 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> 2010-12-13 20:18:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Reopening. Would like to hear editor's rationale.
> The spec gives the rationale, as it does for every designated willful
> violation: "motivated by a desire for compatibility with legacy content". Are
> you disputing that user agents need to follow this behavior in order to enable
> people to access the current web corpus?

That's a generic phrase but isn't necessarily specific to this issue. It is
fair to ask why, in this particular instance, is a willful violation of
compatibility necessary, particularly if doing to increases understanding (and
provides a specific point of reference if the question gets asked again).

> > Also applicable to "willful violations" of WCAG and other accessibility
> > guidelines.
> It's certainly not, since (a) there are no willful violations of conformance
> criteria of accessibility-related standards designated in the spec and (b) if
> they were, it would be off-topic for this bug, which is concerned with the
> willful violations in:
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#table-encoding-overrides

I'm not sure it is appropriate for any of us to tell each other we're off-topic
or not. If Laura is concerned about the phrase "willful violation", then
hearing more details about what drives the use of this phrase in this bug could
then lead her to decide against posting another bug, or to post a bug that is
more likely to generate a useful response. 

The original bug is fairly generic. The example seems to be more of a an
example of one specific mention of the "willful violation". Unfortunately,
since this bug came in through the WhatWG document form, and the person is
unlikely to know this discussion is going on in the bugs because of the way
this system is designed, we can't know for sure if she or he linked the use of
the phrase as an example or because she or he had problems with the specific
use of the phrase. 

So, erring on the side of question, the bug could be broken into two parts:

Is the use of willful violation justified? 

Is this specific use of willful justification justified?

> (If you think that the spec should designate a willful violation of a
> conformance criterion of an accessibility-related standard where it currently
> does not, please file a bug to that effect. Note it's technically impossible
> for HTML5 to establish conformance criteria that willfully violate WCAG2, since
> (unlike WAI-ARIA) WCAG2 does not establish any conformance criteria for host
> languages and (unlike UAAG) WCAG2 does not establish any conformance criteria
> for user agents. At worst, HTML5 might introduce features that are impossible
> for authors to use in conformance with WCAG, but I don't think that's been
> demonstrated to be the case.)

Again, your response is unnecessarily suppressive.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 13 December 2010 20:18:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:35 UTC