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

Re: Bug 7034

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:36:33 -0400
Message-ID: <4BA8D1F1.2060809@intertwingly.net>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
On 03/23/2010 10:28 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> "Sam Ruby"<rubys@intertwingly.net>  wrote:
>> If I scream loudly enough (which seems to be the criteria that
>> Henri believes has been applied to the spec to date), do I get to
>> make this a conformance error?
> I feel I could say "I'll ask you to be careful when attributing
> statements to others in general, and to me in particular."[1]

Acknowledged.  I did us weasel words ("seems to be"), but I will try to 
be more careful in the future.

> I don't believe that screaming loudly enough if the criteria that has
> been applied.

I honestly don't know what criteria has been applied.

> I do believe that the political buy-in of "standardistas" is part of
> the rationale for making some presentational markup non-conforming. I
> also believe that another part of the rationale is a belief that the
> Web gets better if people use presentational markup less and that the
> authoring conformance requirements affect the usage.

Do we have the buy in of those "standaristas"?  My understanding is that 
they tend to recommend such things as explicitly closing all open tags 
and quoting all attributes.

What is the selection criteria?

- Sam Ruby

> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0570.html
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 14:37:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:13 UTC