- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 18:32:57 +0100
- To: public-html@w3.org
James Graham wrote: > I would argue that requiring knowledge of author intent does not prevent a > conformance requirement being useful; such requirements can still > increase the fraction of authors who do something well; this is the > social engineering aspect of conformance requirements that I have > previously discussed [2]. It does prevent services with no access to > out-of-band information handing out badges to proclaim conformance, but > it's not clear to me what the value of such badges is supposed to be, > especially in the case where the conformance requirements have been > watered down to meet the the capabilities of badge-providers. I forgot to add that, in the specific case of <address> I think the conformance requirement in the current spec is over restrictive as I can't imagine enough authors will follow it that a tool could automatically pick contact information out of an <address> element. Therefore I think this use case is too weak to merit its own element and we should broaden the range of content that is conforming for <address>. It is possible I have said this before and got some convincing response that I have nevertheless forgotten. If so, feel free to ignore me :) -- "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?" -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 17:33:44 UTC