W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

RE: ISSUE-4 (html-versioning) (vs. ISSUE-30 longdesc)

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:58:16 -0800
To: "'Adam Barth'" <w3c@adambarth.com>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001501cab82a$42e71c60$c8b55520$@org>
Adam and Maciej:

There's also Test 1.1_HTML_05 which tests explicitly for img@longdesc
for images that "require a long description" although it does
say "Fully automatable: no", it doesn't say "and any other method
might also be used".

But this is getting pretty far afield from the original subject,
which was about versioning:

  Are there any mandated or regulated tests for compliance with
  laws, regulations or policies, where the test explicitly requires
  something which is valid in HTML4, and isn't valid in HTML5,
  or which might become invalid in the future?

If you say "no, there are no such tests" or "such tests
are unimportant and we don't take them into account", then we
can go hunting through test suites looking for some, or
for some people who care about them. 

It seems like you're picking on the examples and giving
reasons why you think they aren't really examples, but
not really answering whether you think there are NO examples
and never will be.

If, on the other hand, you agree that there are, or are likely
to be, any examples of this, then we can talk about how
the suggestion that the testing be "version specific" might
work in the situation when there is no DOCTYPE to look at.

Anyway, that's the link to versioning, Adam.

Received on Sunday, 28 February 2010 03:58:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:58 UTC