- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 02:41:00 -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 6:07 PM, Rob Sayre<rsayre@mozilla.com> wrote: >>> Keep UA conformance requirements, and write a document for lint tools after >>> they've competed for a while. imho, the grave concern over preventing typos >>> looks like a dishonest way of justifying central control. The technical >>> benefits they might provide are really small, if at all present--it smells >>> bad. >>> >> That'd certainly be another way of doing it. The only difference seems >> to be that instead of us defining here what is valid and what isn't, >> we'd leave it up to the community. > > This entire debate concerns whether "validity" is an important concept. In > the context of exhaustive UA requirements, it certainly isn't. Not that it > ever has been. Removing the concept of "validity" is certainly an interesting approach. Though one that I doubt you'd ever get through W3C. I certainly agree it would remove a lot of rat-hole discussions. / Jonas
Received on Sunday, 14 June 2009 09:41:58 UTC