- From: Roger Johansson <roger@456bereastreet.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 21:24:57 +0200
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
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. Great. >> 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? /Roger -- http://www.456bereastreet.com/
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 19:25:16 UTC