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

Re: Bug 7034

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:02:14 -0700 (PDT)
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <2049760329.38300.1269612134208.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org>
"Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> Apparently, you got some blowback from the CSS-orthodoxy.

I didn't. See

> Think about it: wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if the WAI PF WG
> could produce their own set of guidelines?

Not really. "Guidelines" from WAI groups have a tendency to be elevated to *law*. That's why WAI doing its own thing without a wide review is more dangerous than e.g. anti-presentationalists formulating their own guidelines.

> I'd also prefer that there be some mechanism in the document itself to
> indicate which sets of a given document conforms to.  I believe that 
> would be helpful to editing tools and validators alike.

I guess some people like Emacs modelines and others like Eclipse's per-project settings...

I can see the point of e.g. oXygen schema PIs, but I still think standalone validators should err on the side of answering questions posed in the validator UI rather than answering questions posed by the document.

I'm worried that validator modelines could become the next X-UA-Compatible for browsers. But then, denying validator modelines didn't stop X-UA-Compatible from being introduced.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Friday, 26 March 2010 14:02:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:14 UTC