- From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:37:57 -0500
- To: "John Foliot" <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Cc: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>,"'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
My $0.02 CDN At 11:35 AM 6/8/2009 -0700, John Foliot wrote: >Sam Ruby wrote: > > > > So, as a first step, can I get people to express opinions on which of > > the following should apply to <font color="blue">: > > > > 1) It's a conformance error, such as it is today in HTML 5. Conformance error is a bit harsh. > > 2) It's a downplayed error at it represents vestigial markup. Yes, that seems about right. While working on DocBook we used the term "deprecated markup" to indicate that the markup in question not favored in contemporary versions of the spec, but was still allowed in recognition of the need to allow time for content and processors to adapt to the new reality. > > 3) It's conformant. Conformant in the sense that some producers and some consumers may still employ the markup in question, and as stewards HTML the spec we are obliged to maintain a connection with "HTML as she are spoke". To put it another way, the colloquial English expression "ain't" has been a part of "the English as she are spoke" without regard for what the mavens of the English language may have pronounced at any time. The spec and common practice diverged. So, in spite of the fact that my teachers forbade the use of "ain't", it eventually became acceptable because it was in common use. That is not to say that every UA should or must do anything with deprecated markup. Reporting an error is not required. A lower level advisory may be appropriate, especially if the UA is a contemporary editor with the capability to seek out deprecated markup and offer the ability to update it to modern standards. > > 4) The HTML 5 spec should be silent on this matter. That doesn't seem very helpful. It would deny the past and not be helpful. Regards, Murray
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 01:38:44 UTC