- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:04:49 +0300
- To: "Sam Kuper" <sam.kuper@uclmail.net>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Aug 19, 2008, at 17:53, Sam Kuper wrote: > I think it's important to distinguish between compliance in an > authoring tool and compliance in output. > > In the above case, Flickr (and any other AT) would be a compliant > authoring tool if it: > • checked the output for validity, > • notified any authors creating invalid output of the fact, and > explained the kind of invalidity and why (in layman's terms, but > with links to technical documents) it is considered problematic, > • provided reminders of the invalidity on each occasion an invalid > document was re-edited. > As for the output, it would still not be valid HTML unless, well, it > was valid HTML. Quoting self from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008May/0355.html : The notion that a syntax specification should require software conforming to the specification to produce syntactically non- conforming output under some circumstances is patently bizarre. We shouldn't require something that is bizarre in a way that it doesn't fit the software developer mindset, because then we don't get the reactions we want from software developers. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 15:05:32 UTC