- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:01:40 -0500
- To: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 18:25 -0400, Rob Sayre wrote: > On 6/12/09 6:22 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, John Foliot wrote: > > > > > I pose a serious question: what is the real benefit of making unescaped > > > ampersands non-conformant? (Of making anything "non-conformant"?) > > > > > > > It defines what QA tools like conformance checkers should highlight as > > problems, as an aid to authors who wish to catch mistakes they did not > > intend. That's it. > > > > That's called a lint tool. You don't understand what MUST means. I don't doubt that he knows what it means, but I agree he's using it oddly, which has given me problems in reviewing the spec all along: keep conformance objective (detailed review of section 1. Introduction) From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:24:25 -0500 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/1187.html We have a RAISED issue in this area... ISSUE-61 conformance-language RAISED Conformance depends on author's intent http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/61 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 15 June 2009 17:01:50 UTC