- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:43:54 -0500
- To: Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 11:27 -0700, Edward O'Connor wrote: > >> I think it's defining the semantics of a nonconforming case. > > > > That makes no sense to me. Why tell authors semantics > > of nonconforming cases? > [...] > > i.e. that some documents are non-conforming but > > their semantics are of interest not just > > to tag-soup-consumers but to authors as well? > > As an author, I'm interested in the semantics of documents that I write, > regardless of whether or not I manage to obey all of the conformance > criteria. So I think the spec is sensible in this case. If the semantics are specified in the case of a missing link/@rel attribute, I don't see how "must be present" is necessary for interoperability (cf RFC2119). "should be present" is more appropriate. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 18:44:04 UTC