- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:32:08 -0400
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/24/2010 06:40 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Mar 24, 2010, at 3:37 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:33:31 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> >> wrote: >>> On Mar 24, 2010, at 3:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>>> >>>> Also, do we really still need to have arguments over why >>>> transitional doctypes are bad (they trigger an inferior rendering >>>> mode for one) and why presentational markup is to be avoided? >>> >>> I think I understand the value of avoiding quirks mode and almost >>> standards mode, enough to explain it. I'm not sure I understand fully >>> why presentational markup is to be avoided. Can you provide some >>> reasons or point to a good reference? >>> >>> I ask because I'm planning to make a wiki page that collects >>> rationales for authoring conformance requirements. >> >> Ian posted about this a while back: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/0961.html > > Awesome, thanks for the reference! Agreed. My problem is consistency. I see some of the same people who have stated that longdesc has been tried and failed for over 10 years advocating that such markup be considered non-conforming, and I see evidence that a substantial number of sites are willfully violating admonitions against presentational markup... again over 10 years later. One of the things that attracted me to HTML5 was that it purported to document the web as it exists as opposed to other efforts at the W3C which intended to change the web to their vision as to how it should be. > - Maciej - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 22:32:54 UTC