- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:08:48 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mar 23, 2010, at 6:39 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > On 03/23/2010 05:14 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >> Another downside is that many people who want to "opt in to best >> practices" would not agree that including the string >> 'xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/"' in a text/html document is >> itself a best practice. If you want to propose multiple validator >> modes >> triggered by something in the document itself, I would suggest using >> something less potentially polarizing as the trigger. That would also >> address the downside that you stated. > > I'll give my normal response to such assertions: to ask somebody to > come forward and state that such an approach is not acceptable to > them personally (i.e., I'm not looking for somebody to argue on > behalf of unnamed others), and to propose an alternative. [chair hat off] To give a specific example, I would like to consistently avoid presentational markup on the webkit.org, but I do not want to add an xmlns declaration to every page. > > I'm still trying to gather rationale for the current criteria. I've > heard rationale of "appeasing standardistas/super friends", but that > might be me misinterpreting (I certainly don't want to be accused of > misrepresenting anyone <grin>). I figured this was something that > would appease rather than alienate that particular crowd. I don't believe that was the only rationale given, and I don't believe it was given as a rationale for anything besides banning presentational markup. (I am also not sure it is a very good rationale for anything.) > In any case, this is all premature. For the moment, I will argue > for bumping the priority of bug 7034 is the right next step as I > continue to assert that is is on the critical path for resolving a > number of issues. Even a WONTFIX is an acceptable answer at this > point as that will enable us to solicit proper change proposals, > complete with rationale. [chair hat on] I recently asked Ian to give expedited consideration to a few bugs (mostly ones that impact ISSUE-79 and ISSUE-31, since the former was decided by the Working Group, and the latter has a call for counter- proposals about to close). I didn't ask him to do so for bug 7034, since the topic is actively under discussion and I'd like to give him a chance to consider the mailing list discussion before entering a resolution. However, you are free to make your own request to him. Regards, Maciej P.S. I also think your proposal above, to make some conformance criteria apply only if the root element has 'xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/' , would be a reasonable bug and probably more productive than bug 7034.
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 02:09:21 UTC