- From: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 04:36:56 +1300
- To: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org Tracking WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Ben Boyle wrote: > On Nov 21, 2007 8:05 PM, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> wrote: > >>> I think a document published by the W3C for authors shouldn't subset >>> what the spec proper defines as the conforming language, but it can >>> opt to use a single convention for its examples. >>> >> I leave this decision to Web designers, Web developers, not >> implementers. :) >> > > I very much support this, and I would particularly like to see it > represent a W3C position on "best practice". By this I mean, it should > describe HTML5 features in a manner that is consistent with other "web > standards" (W3C recommendations) like WCAG. I'm less interested in > aspects that are not backed up by other standards; I'd consider that > wandering into the territory of personal preference on coding style > ... difficult to pin down and not terribly useful. > > Consistency with other best practice standards is vital though. W3C > should produce this. Doubtless many others will contribute excellent > articles on the topic for years to come, but they won't carry the same > authority. Formal clarification by W3C of any aspect of HTML 5 can > provide a useful reference point, one that could reduce a number of > repetitive and pointless debates. I would greatly appreciate it for > that reason alone. > > I agree with Justin: let's get this started! > > cheers > Ben > > > > How do you propose that the W3C deal with the fact that there's about 10 different ways to create a HTML5 document. And more importantly what about the fact that not everyone in this group can agree on what is "best practice". I mean, the group can't even agree on what a XHTML document is, and the W3C wont clarify this either. This will have to be dealt with sooner or later. Cheers, Dean Edridge
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 15:37:10 UTC