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

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

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Rob Sayre'" <rsayre@mozilla.com>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <04de01c9eba2$20f05360$62d0fa20$@edu>
Rob Sayre wrote:
> Even in other cases, meeting the author requirments will often provide
> no appreciable benefit. For example, http://www.google.com uses a font
> element to render the list of advanced options to the right of the
> search box. I am not sure how changing that page to be valid HTML5 would
> make it better.

Which brings *me* back to my ongoing question: why should we care about
validity (conformance)?  Google doesn't and it does not seem to be
impeding them any.  It makes the discussion surrounding @summary et al
moot: if I continue to use @summary in an HTML5 the document it's
non-conforming.  So what?  It works for my intended audience, and that
trumps some ideal of conformance that seems to be almost meaningless in
practice.  I get that it is "bad", but what does "bad" get me (vs. what
being "good" will get me)?

Or am I missing something?

Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 21:09:36 UTC

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