- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:34:46 -0400
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/23/2010 10:08 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > 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. Two things: [chair hat off] (1) that goes into the territory that I previously referred to as YAGNI, unless you also want to explicitly close all open elements and consistently quote your attributes. My intent was only intended to propose a "no motor cycle helmets" version and a "with motorcycle helmets" version. The combinatorics get much more complicated otherwise. [chair hat on] (2) I want to make it clear: you (personally) would be willing to add some bytes to your pages, but you personally could not live with those bytes starting out with the characters x m l n s, and you personally find this, ... what? Offensive? >> 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.) [chair hat off] I would someday like to get a straight answer to the question: what is the rationale? [chair hat on] Will somebody please answer Sam's question? :-) >> 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. [chair hat on] I did make that request: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0591.html You are free not support that request, but I believe that it is key to issue 41 which is also about to close. > 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. [chair hat off] I disagree. I would expect that a bug that requested that "some" conformance criteria be returned immediately with a request for more information. If rationale is provided in the response to 7034, that might be enough for me not to pursue this. If 7034 reaches a state where change proposals are appropriate, I will provide one, completely with rationale. - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 02:35:26 UTC