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

Re: AuthConfReq: Presentational Markup

From: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:21:55 +0100
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <C79DF564-4769-4F51-9AD2-2427FD65094C@geekhood.net>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On 28.03.2010, at 13:24, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> My central thesis is that banning is not the appropriate mechanism for markup that works interoperably and is widely and willfully used.  You are free to campaign against cheeseburgers, but are not free to outright ban their sale.

HTML 5 intends to make all markup interoperable. One can argue that every markup is willfully used. Following that path, validators/conformance checkers are completely unnecessary. HTML 5 validator could respond to every document with "Congratulations! Your document is... meh, whatever!" Once HTML 4 browsers disappear, there will be no practical difference between conforming and non-conforming documents.

I think bar for conformance should be much higher, and take good practices (accessibility, usability, maintainability) into account. Those authors who don't care about such criteria can continue to ignore them, their markup will be interoperable anyway.

It's easy to find exceptions where "banned" elements are harmless, but this shouldn't be excuse to allow all uses of them, including those which are harmful.

I want to campaign for markup I consider of good quality, and I would prefer if that would be the same as conforming HTML 5. HTML 5 spec and conformance checkers will have a lot of authority, and it will be very difficult to campaign against them (i.e. it's difficult to convince people that markup which validates is not good).

-- 
regards, Kornel Lesiński
Received on Sunday, 28 March 2010 13:22:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:00 UTC