- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 10:20:45 +0900
- 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 professionalism. 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