- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:44:04 -0700
- To: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Rob Sayre<rsayre@mozilla.com> wrote: > 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. Well, the question didn't seem to be as much "what good would it be to abolish <font> from the web". That question seems easy to answer. I interpreted the question as "why do we discuss what's conformant and non-conformant if a lot of people are not going care about the difference". My answer to that is "because some are going to care". If that's not a good enough answer then I'd like to hear proposals for what to do instead. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 21:44:57 UTC