On 6/12/09 5:20 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > 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? > Don't turn the question around. He asked how change will benefit him. It should be easy to answer. - Rob
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 21:31:35 UTC