- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 11:25:07 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >>> What new mime type do you propose for this? > > I note that this question was not answered. I thought it subsumed under my following answer; I don't believe there is any need to mint a new mime type. That would be explicitly versioning the web, which I don't think is necessary at this time. >> So we both agree that the web is unversioned. We just, apparently, >> disagree on quite what that means. To me, that means that we are >> required to support old 'versions' by ensuring that they act/look the >> way they were intended, as much as is possible/practical. It does not >> mean (to me) that we have to continue to bless every aspect of every >> old 'version' as being equally valid and correct. Some things were >> simply mistakes. Widely-used mistakes still have to be supported, but >> we can still say "Hey, this was a mistake. Don't use it anymore.". > > I note in passing the use of the word 'bless'. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here. Could you try to state your points less cryptically? >> Doing anything else is abdication of our duty to move the web forward. > > A wee bit of hyperbole. I don't think so. We have the duty to move the web forward. Saying that everything that has ever been done in the past is valid is abdication of that duty. I mean that very literally. Part of moving the web forward is solving new problems. Another part is identifying failed solutions and discouraging their use. >> We should help authors, for precisely the reasons listed in the >> author conformance requirements, > > Agreed. > >> and that means forbidding some constructs > > Disagreed. > >> while still specifying how they should be interpreted when >> they are encountered. That does mean that some documents which were >> previously conforming aren't anymore. And? The page still works. >> It's just not authored according to current best practices, /which is >> precisely the point/. Conformance reflects reality. > > I would have no problem with a Best Current Practices document, such as the > IETF often produce[1]. So you think that we can help authors more by explicitly making lots of things valid, and then producing a separate document that says not to use some of them? (Not rhetorical - this just seems to be what you're saying and I want to make sure.) > I also don't believe that your notion of conformance reflects reality. The > reality I see is that the overwhelming majority of pages violate > conformance. I furthermore don't believe that you can segregate pages into > "legacy" and "new". I believe that there are a lot of not-new but actively > maintained and living documents out there. Many of which willfully violate > these conformance requirements. Sure, most documents are nonconforming. Most documents aren't authored according to what we currently call "best practice". I'm not sure what the problem with this is. Can you elaborate on what you believe the problem is with calling these documents nonconforming? On a slightly different tack, if we go your suggested route of making all of these valid in HTML5 and then producing a separate Best Practices document, the documents that HTML5 currently calls nonconforming will instead be conforming HTML5 but nonconforming to Best Practices. Do you believe that this produces a superior state of affairs? If so, why do you think it is okay to say something doesn't conform to a Best Practices document, but not okay to say something doesn't conform to HTML5 for the same reasons? ~TJ
Received on Saturday, 27 March 2010 18:25:59 UTC