Re: Support Existing Content

On 2 maj 2007, at 12.23, Henri Sivonen wrote:

> (Just to clarify: My service does not hand out actual badges at all  
> to discourage the badge hunting behavior and to avoid the situation  
> where a bug fix makes a page ineligible for the badge and the page  
> author complains about the bug fix.)

Good move. I agree with that.

> I think many people have clung too strongly to the wishy-washy word  
> "deprecated". The WHATWG draft goes further and outright  
> *obsoletes* stuff.


>> Apologies if that is already in the HTML 5 WD. I have not had time  
>> to read every word of it.
> Well, yeah, much of the current discussion could be avoided by  
> reading the draft as well. :-)

I have read it, but as I said not every single word. It is a long,  
confusing, and difficult document to get through. Parts of it remind  
me of trying to read and understand WCAG 2. I still haven't been able  
to find where the difference between what browsers must accept and  
authors may produce is clearly explained.

> Mozilla (a browser vendor) is funding the development of an HTML5  
> conformance checker. Rejecting non-conforming content in browsers  
> is not the right way to "encourage" because it would make new  
> browsers less permissive and would give the impression to users  
> that old browsers work better with real content.

I am _not_ suggesting that non-conforming content is rejected, only  
that there is some way of making the user (who can then use that info  
when filing a bug report) aware that the page that they are having a  
problem with (or not) is non-conforming. If displaying errors at all  
is so horribly bad, why do browsers bother with JavaScript errors?



Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 19:25:16 UTC