- From: Roger Johansson <roger@456bereastreet.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:48:29 +0200
- To: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
On 21 jun 2007, at 17.57, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote: > Yes, it might be helpful > if the validator said (e.g.) "Although your document is > valid HTML 2.0, it is not valid HTML 4.01 which is the current > standard", but that is as far as I want it to go : I most > certainly do /not/ want it to say (in effect) "I have ignored > your DOCTYPE directive and am validating against the most > recent version of the standard" Agreed. The more I think about versioning, the less sense it makes to remove it. >> 1. poor authoring practices should NOT sway or inform our decisions > > I for one am not the least bit interested in helping to design > a markup language for those too lazy to think : authors who merely > "copy-and-paste the boilerplate text" should /not/ be the target > of our efforts; Good to see I am not alone in having this opinion. I am yet to see a single acceptable argument for breaking or refusing to improve HTML because some people cannot be bothered to learn it. > that are (a) maximally accessible (surely the first criterion), Yes, that is my priority number one as well. /Roger -- http://www.456bereastreet.com/
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 16:48:42 UTC