- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:43:32 +0200
- To: "Dave Singer" <singer@apple.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:34:42 +0200, Dave Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > At 7:57 -0400 11/04/08, David Poehlman wrote: >> It's a reasonable approach but I'm not sure it should be designed into >> spec. > > and as a point of principal here, it seems kinda backward. On questions > of validity, we would surely want the output of *automated* HTML > production to be 100% valid, yet in some sense allow people to exercise > their judgment. Sure. It is reasonable to want everything, but it is not generally likely to happen that we get everything we want. In which case we go about engineering a solution that provides the optimal available outcome. In that context, validity is not a holy grail - we first have to have some understanding of what the purpose of validity is, beyond some feel-good factor for developers. [rest is reasonable stuff snipped because it has been repeated in other threads on this subject] cheers -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 11:44:25 UTC