- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 07:31:37 -0400
- To: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- CC: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Rob Sayre wrote: > On 6/9/09 10:52 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> Rob Sayre wrote: >>> On 6/9/09 6:02 PM, Shelley Powers wrote: >>>> Why reference the Mozilla API? I'm assuming because it drives the >>>> Mozilla editor, as well as the browser, which puts the API into the >>>> conforming author territory, while still being part of a user agent. >>> >>> That's a good point. Just more fallout from the ridiculous author >>> conformance requirements. Pseudo-intellectual ideas about "semantic >>> markup" just don't buy you that much as requirements. >>> >>> Like anything else, some HTML files are better crafted than others, >>> but conformance requirements should address showstoppers. >> >> Are there MUSTs in the current spec that the Mozilla foundation is >> unlikely to ever implement? Can they be identified specifically? > > Yes, most of the authoring requirements are meaningless or at least > pointless. I hope you can forgive me for failing to produce an > exhaustive list, but the subject of this message is a good example. Just to be clear: the subject of this messages is an example of something that absolutely prevent one or more products that aspires to be HTML 5 conformant from ever being so? Do I have this correct? Do others at Mozilla agree? Do others at other browser vendors agree? Do other non-browser tool vendors agree? In the case of planet Venus, I can certainly implement an XSLT stylesheet that transforms fonts into the style element equivalent, so this is not a showstopper for me. - Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 14 June 2009 11:32:32 UTC