- 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>
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? JF
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 21:09:36 UTC