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

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

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:59:25 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270906121459k55bab485v57e0728184915ebd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
>> 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

Returns us full circle back to what I thought was a compelling point
about Sam's font option list: are there penalties for using a
non-conforming attribute or element in HTML5? The point is moot with
XHTML, because we can use namespaces and do what we want. Well, within
some reason, since we can't redefine attributes and elements within
the HTML spec.

But if HTML WG succeeds in removing virtually every last bit of
accessibility markup in HTML5, what are the negative consequences of
continuing to use the accessibility markup, and the new accessibility
markup (and RDFa, and so on), other than we don't get a little gold
star of conformity?

I've looked through the spec, and the answer is not clear. I'd love
enlightenment on this one.

Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 21:59:57 UTC

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