W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2009

Re: <font color="blue"> (was ISSUE-32)

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 17:02:19 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270906091502k6820a70ev2cc7b6d776d44def@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com> wrote:
> > With the new June 3rd addition to the HTML 5 specification that
> > demands active non-support for elements/attributes not specifically
> > mentioned in the spec, user agents are now told that they must not
> > support non-existent (never existed, or previously existed but now
> > obsolete) elements and attributes. According to the HTML 5 spec, FONT
> > could then be non-conformant, which means, if I read the HTML 5 spec
> > correctly, user agents _must not_ support the element.
> I've just examined all changes to the spec on June 3rd (svn diff
> -r3180:3187 source), and I wasn't able to find a change like the one you
> describe. Could you be more specific?
> Perhaps you're referring to r3183, which adds this text: "Authors must
> not use elements, attributes, and attribute values that are not
> permitted by this specification or other applicable specifications."
> Note that this is an /author/ conformance requirement, not a /user
> agent/ conformance requirement.
> --
> Edward O'Connor

And associated with that is the following from Sam's initial question:


A part of the answer to the above may be that tools may chose not to
conform, and thereby give up any right to claim that they are
conformant, but frankly that's a cop out.  Let's explore the impact on a
set of tools that demonstrably do wish to be conformant, namely
browsers.  Again quoting from the HTML 5 editors draft:


   Authoring tools and markup generators must generate conforming
   documents. Conformance criteria that apply to authors also apply to
   authoring tools, where appropriate.

So... does this apply to APIs such as the following:


If so, does Mozilla have plans to remove the summary attribute from this
page in order to become conformant with HTML5?  I doubt that would be
popular.  If not, why does Mozilla get to keep this in but other tools
must take it out?


Though it may not apply to the FONT element directly, it does apply to
other vestigial elements and attributes, such as @summary, which
triggered this discussion. It would also apply for applet, another
HTML 4.01 deprecated element that has been obsoleted in HTML 5.

Why reference the Mozilla API? I'm assuming because it drives the
Mozilla editor, as well as the browser, which puts the API into the
conforming author territory, while still being part of a user agent.
Come to that, wouldn't this also apply to Greasemonkey, too?

(Sam, please correct me if my interpretation of your text is incorrect.)

So, I don't think we can assume a clean break between user agents and
authoring tools and markup generators.

Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 22:02:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:49 UTC