Re: 9. WYSIWYG editor (enforcing the signature)

On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 04:32:00PM +0900, Karl Dubost wrote:

> It has nothing to do with wysiwyg editors, it is more about the quality of 
> the code as defined by a professional corpus. It is interesting to see that 
> here a form of versioning is coming back by the backdoor.

As I understand the discussion, there are tfour issues in play:

1. If there is to be a signature as proposed in section 9.1.1, what to call
it. Nobody has argued in favour of retaining "(WYSIWYG editor)", and thus the
objections to that signature stand.

2. Whether there should be a signature to allow validators to distinguish
documents that may contain FONT elements from those which may not.

3. Whether FONT should be deprecated entirely, as redundant with the SPAN
element and its STYLE attribute.

4. Whether a signature should be available with which to mark HTML documents
that are likely, or bound, to be of low quality, due to the author's semantic
intentions not having been reliably ascertained. If there should be such a
signature, under what circumstances its use should be required or encouraged
in the spec.

The most important issues on which to achieve consensus are 3 and 4, since 1
and 2 logically depend on them.
>
> I would suggest that once "HTML 5 for Authors" is done, the document could 
> carry.
>
> 	 <meta name="conform" content="html5-bp">
>
> html5-bp = HTML 5 Best Practices. It would acknowledge a set of rules 
> defined by the Web community and considered as "good HTML".

This could of course include i18n, accessibility and usability considerations
among the "best practices". There have been suggestions in the past that such
a document should be written, but it hasn't happened so far.

The above suggestion implies an affirmative answer to issue 4 in my list of
open questions on this topic.

Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 08:17:41 UTC