- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:26:19 +0200
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
On Mar 22, 2010, at 16:34, Sam Ruby wrote: > On 03/22/2010 09:51 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> On Mar 22, 2010, at 15:28, Sam Ruby wrote: >> >>> On 03/22/2010 05:11 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >>>> "Sam Ruby"<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> google.com: >>>> >>>> The message wasn't about lack of</body> or</html> but about the >>>> lack of another end tag. (</center>? I didn't verify.) The problem >>>> being solved is that the author may not have intended to keep the >>>> element open all the way to EOF. >>> >>> "may not have intended". Given that this is google.com, I find it unlikely that this was unintentional. RFC 2119: >>> >>> 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there >>> may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a >>> particular item, but the full implications must be understood and >>> carefully weighed before choosing a different course. >> >> The MUST vs. SHOULD distinction isn't useful when implementing a validator that exposes a SAX-like taxonomy of messages. Furthermore, I don't believe users would be helped by using UI terms like "MUST violation" and "SHOULD violation" instead of "error". > > My position is that MUST is not appropriate. My position is that MUST vs. SHOULD is a distraction as far as the question of what a validator reports as "error" goes. If you call Slippery Slope, I call Red Herring. >>>> "Maciej Stachowiak"<mjs@apple.com> wrote: >>>>> For what it's worth, I don't personally see the value in making >>>>> presentational elements and attributes an error. >>>> >>>> Making presentational attributes and elements errors has the value of >>>> getting political buy-in from people who've spent a decade saying >>>> that presentational markup is bad. >>>> >>>> If we make<font> not to be an error, some people will flip the bozo >>>> bit on us. We can't please everyone simultaneously on the topic of >>>> presentational markup. >>> >>> Name the individual. I'm not being facetious. >> >> If you want concrete names, I believe you'd need make<font face> conforming, publicize the change and observe the blogosphere. >> >> However, if conjecture from analogy is good enough, see >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2010Feb/0024.html >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2008Aug/0005.html >> for disapproval of less reviled elements that are perceived to be presentational (though the disapproval might not go far enough to constitute flipping the bozo bit). > > Again, I don't believe that either of those rise to the level of MUST. > > I also think this link is appropriate here (I think you will agree with the sentiments expressed there): > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0127.html > > :-) Perhaps I should have been more clear: I am not arguing that we should keep particular pieces of presentational markup as non-conforming. I was saying what value there is in keeping those pieces non-conforming. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 11:26:54 UTC