Re: Bug 7034

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 03/26/2010 06:56 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>
>> "Henri Sivonen"<hsivonen@iki.fi>  wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I'd be more inclined to allow more
>>> interoperably-implemented presentational pre-existing markup
>>> features as valid to allow authors to use an HTML5 validator as a
>>> development aid when adding HTML5 features to pre-existing content
>>> that has interoperably supported legacy cruft in it.
>
> Ditto.
>
>> Based on IRC discussion, I feel I should clarify: I'm not suggesting
>> that all interoperably-implemented presentational pre-existing
>> features should be valid as a blanket policy. However, I think it
>> would be worthwhile to allow things that are used so much that not
>> allowing them makes validators too noisy for use with legacy
>> markup--but only when the harm arising from the use of legacy markup
>> features is directed mostly to the maintainer of the markup and not
>> to the users.
>>
>> Examples: Tweaking table borders in CSS vs. tweaking them in
>> presentational attributes is probably an issue where the harm is
>> directed at the page author. Using<font size>  most likely means
>> that<h1>,<h2>, etc. aren't being used, which is a case where the harm
>> is directed at users of non-conventional browsing software.
>
> Apparently, you got some blowback from the CSS-orthodoxy.  We also have an
> accessibility-orthodoxy, an XML-orthodoxy and possibly quite a few
> additional orthodoxies to deal with, each of which require that we worship
> in their various churches.

I'm hoping that you're being facetious, because what you've done is
pretty much described a majority  portion of the user base for the
HTML5 spec -- and Apple's, Mozilla's, Google's, IBM's, Opera's, and
Microsoft's customers. And in a way that struck me as being
dismissive.

You all are enjoying this quite long semi-permathread, and that's
cool. But when you referring to significant proportions of this
group's user base as "standardistas", and  seemingly dismiss the
concerns of large numbers of people in some form of tech elitist
frenzy, maybe you need to step back and re-establish your perspectives
a bit.

>
> This has resulted in a number of open issues to resolve.  Included in this
> is a MIME type registry to pursue.
>
> I'd like to see us follow a path along the lines you describe at the top of
> this email.  And then additionally either produce ourselves or encourage
> others to produce additional sets of guidelines over this bare minimum and
> strongly encourage authors to adopt as many of these guidelines as they see
> fit.
>
> Think about it: wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if the WAI PF WG could
> produce their own set of 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'd love to unleash the creativity of the working group and solicit change
> proposals (complete with rationale) to address this.
>
> I'm frustrated that bugs 7034 and bugs 7468 have been in process and without
> a either resolution or even a rationale provided since June and August (and,
> yes, I know technically they were only recently reopened, and I'm equally
> frustrated that the clock can be reset so simply).
>
> It is my request that any and all bugs that block us from proceeding to the
> state in the Decision Process that enables the co-chairs to put out a call
> for proposals be treated as a priority at this time.
>

Now, I can agree with the rest of your email. So perhaps the earlier
part was being facetious based on frustrations. I can understand that.



> - Sam Ruby
>
>

Shelley

Received on Friday, 26 March 2010 14:21:31 UTC