- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:20:28 -0700
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Cc: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:08 PM, John Foliot<jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote: > 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)? So what do you suggest we do? / Jonas
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 21:21:25 UTC