W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: 9. WYSIWYG editor (enforcing the signature)

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 10:20:45 +0900
Message-Id: <802604C7-DADD-4B59-B40F-0CC53622BD33@w3.org>
To: public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>

Le 6 août 2007 à 18:06, Mihai Sucan a écrit :
> You cannot trust any claims. But ... if anything like this gets in  
> the spec, then many/some people who are not experienced enough  
> *will* in fact trust such claims, and they'll make decisions based  
> on such claims, in their sites, in their tools, parsers, etc.
> I do not recommend adding anything like this into the spec.

:) It is already in the spec.
	<meta name="@blah@" content="@something@">
In the same way it is why the debate on versioning is almost moot,  
because if the author wants versioning, they can already do it.
	<meta name="version" content="html5">

We will not be able to forbid a part of this group or a group of Web  
pro outside of this group with enough momentum to define guidelines  
for Web professionals. I would go even further, they could even make  
it a W3C recommendation if it's what they require. The same way,  
desktop browsers  have decided to restart the work on HTML 5.

Le 6 août 2007 à 17:40, Sander Tekelenburg a écrit :
>> 	 <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".
> What is the problem that is being solved here?

First, I don't believe having a metaname for wysiwyg editor is  
solving anything at all. Saying that only wysiwyg editors need/put  
font tag is ignoring the fact that document move from one tool to the  
other. A document is not edited by one tool, but can be edited by  
multiple type of tools at different times.

> Obviously I recognise a use for easy identification of quality.

This is a shorcut, I have not made in the proposal. :)
	<meta name="conform" content="html5-bp">
is not for assessing the quality of the document. That would not be  
very effective and easily spoofed.

Certification is not a technical solution, it is a legal agreement  
between different parties. The content of the certification contract  
can be anything as long as the parties have agreed on the terms of  
the contract.

> But I don't see how a mere
> string claiming quality, or lack thereof, could ever be useful --  
> it would be
> easy to be spoofed.

As I said it was not a claim of quality. It is a string to explicit  
declare the intent of the author.  Let me give you a scenario.

Tom and Paul are working in a Web design agency. They are working on  
shared documents with quite strict rules. They have decided to follow  
the "HTML 5 Best Practices" rules. It's their pride to give their  
customers, well tailored documents and consider it is a mark of their  
When they are working on document, they might consider at a point  
that a document is ready and conformant to html5-bp. They put the tag.
	It helps them to know the status of the work,
	it helps them to say to a conformance checker that they consider  
their document ready.
	They can even establish *by contract* with their client that they  
have respected this rule when the HTML carry this tag.

It is basically what the W3C validator does this day with the icon.

> Or to apply it to your idea of a HTML WG "best practices"  
> document:<link
> rel="quality" href="http://w3.org/certificates/bp/id" title="W3C Best
> Practices certified">. (In which case W3C would have to bother to do
> certification.)

Nope. W3C could, but doesn't have to do certification. As I said a  
certification service can be launched by anyone. A certification  
service is exactly like a browser. It is a product which uses all or  
parts of a technology.

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 02:04:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:19 UTC