- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:24:12 -0800
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mar 12, 2010, at 4:03 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > Personally, I could see a case for removing all authoring > conformance requirements from all of our drafts. Authoring > conformance requirements cause a disproportionate amount of > controversy in the group, while not having nearly as much effect on > what authors can do as implementation conformance requirements. I decided to check my hypothesis against reality, in the form of our list of open issues. Document conformance issues: 12 total ISSUE-4, ISSUE-27, ISSUE-30, ISSUE-31,ISSUE-32, ISSUE-79, ISSUE-80, ISSUE-88, ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91, ISSUE-99, ISSUE-102 Implementation conformance issues (generally also affect document conformance): 9 total ISSUE-9, ISSUE-74, ISSUE-82, ISSUE-86, ISSUE-93 ISSUE-95, ISSUE-96, ISSUE-97, ISSUE-100 Editoral issues (no material affect on either document or implementation conformance): 10 total ISSUE-56, ISSUE-66, ISSUE-78, ISSUE-81, ISSUE-89 ISSUE-92, ISSUE-94, ISSUE-101, ISSUE-103, ISSUE-104 Not sure: ISSUE-41 Probably the most striking thing here is how many of our issues are purely editorial (i.e. it appears they would not materially affect the conformance requirements for either producers or consumers of HTML). Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 12:24:46 UTC