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

Re: Support Existing Content

From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:46:25 +0100
Message-Id: <03E0E46C-5AE0-4FC6-A51B-AB6C6293FF9E@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C List <public-html@w3.org>, "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>

On 1 May 2007, at 16:36, Dão Gottwald wrote:

> Gareth Hay schrieb:
>>> I find it funny that technically advanced individuals in this  
>>> very mailing list break up our nice threads again and again. What  
>>> do you think, Gareth, should the server just have rejected your  
>>> mail?
>> I suppose I'm not technically advanced enough to understand the  
>> point you are making here Dao.
> See <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/ 
> 0040.html>:
> "In reply to" is missing. IMHO that violates our (admittedly  
> unwritten) protocol, yet your mail wasn't rejected and I was able  
> to read it. That was just an example for fault tolerance, and why  
> it's needed.
Actually, I think it was the subject line that was missing, because I  
wanted to quote more than one mail I chose to forward rather than reply.
And indeed illustrates my point perfectly. If you allow people to get  
away with shoddy practices, they won't stop. had the mail been  
rejected, I would have been forced to take corrective action to get  
the message to you all.

You see this as an advantage, I see it as a disadvantage, why should  
I conform, when you can clearly still read my mails if I don't?

>>> See, people aren't perfect, especially those who author HTML.  
>>> User Agents will have to accept ill-formed mark-up. Advanced  
>>> authors who want/need strictness and/or extensibility can chose  
>>> the XHTML derivative (by that I don't mean XHTML2).
>> To address the point I do understand, I agree, no one is perfect,  
>> but are you really suggest something akin to using a C compiler to  
>> take some pseudo code input and attempt to produce executable  
>> code, by hook or crook?
> Maybe in the future. Until today, average Jane doesn't produce  
> programs, but she does have a blog or a myspace page.
That was an analogy. Last time i checked there is some (en)coding  
involved in Blogs and MySpace, and the like anyway.

Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2007 15:46:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:20 UTC