- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "'Rob Sayre'" <rsayre@mozilla.com>, "'Jonas Sicking'" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, <public-html@w3.org>
Rob Sayre wrote:
>
>
> That's a bad answer. People don't care about invalid markup if it works.
> http://www.google.com would seem to be example number 1.
Precisely! My personal belief is that one of the reasons for abandoning
the "X" in HTML5 is that they don't want to be restricted with the more
draconian error handling requirements of XML. So 'conformance' is a wink
and a nod proposition anyway: we can now add HTML5 to the list with
horse-shoes and hand-grenades ("Close enough for...")
If it's good enough for the goose, than it will be good enough for the
gander, and I will author web documents that will cherry-pick the best of
the past and the future as I see it, based upon my perspective as a web
accessibility specialist. It seems to me that the current trend within
the WG leaves me no other choice, especially given that the penalty for
non-conformance is virtually nil.
JF
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 22:47:59 UTC