- From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:30:30 +0100
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 15:31:34 UTC
I have been asking why are these things considered valid, people have been providing answers thanks to those that have done so with a minimum of snark. I have not asked to make anything invalid. I may consider pursuing the tables without <th> trigger a warning if it is turns out that the vast majority of tables without headers are indeed layout tables as using tables for layout is a conformance error i beleieve. regards Stevef On 17 June 2010 16:24, Daniel Glazman < daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: > Le 17/06/10 17:09, Steven Faulkner a écrit : > > > >Are you seriously asking to make about:blank invalid ??? >> reponses minus the attitude would be preferred. >> > > Uh? > Please answer: are you asking to make about:blank invalid and > content-empty templates not conforming? > > Your questions about conformance are putting at risk: > > - templates > - about:blank > - wysiwyg conforming editors > - dynamic web-apps > - collaborative editing > - HTML as an exchange data format > > Hum, to say the least... > > </Daniel> > > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 15:31:34 UTC