Re: Breakdown of issues

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 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-79, ISSUE-80, ISSUE-88, ISSUE-90, ISSUE-91,
> ISSUE-99, ISSUE-102
> Implementation conformance issues (generally also affect document 
> conformance): 9 total
> 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).

Co-chair hat off: I previously stated removing all rules that cause no 
interoperability problems would also be an acceptable solution to me. 
As long as we have conformance rules that favor one set of 
constituencies over another, then we are going to continue to have these 

> Regards,
> Maciej

- Sam Ruby

Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 12:44:07 UTC