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

Re: AuthConfReq: Presentational Markup

From: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:27:25 -0400
Message-Id: <3B7BDD34-D796-405F-B080-9E62EB6029DD@la-grange.net>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

Le 28 mars 2010 à 08:24, Sam Ruby a écrit :
> My central thesis is that banning is not the appropriate mechanism for markup that works interoperably and is widely and willfully used.

[…]

> I (continue to) offer as an alternative the notion of identifying separately those notions that are felt to be Best Current Practices from those that are Author Conformance Criteria.

I understand the rationale and where you are coming from.
I see some value points into it, even if I have a different school of thought about it.

But I would prefer to give an example of why I do not think it is always good to put things into a best practice document.

<blockquote> or <ul> have been used by ages by many developers for indenting text, even if the test is not a quote or a list. It doesn't really create any interoperability issues, aka the class of products "browser" treats it without any specific issues. 

According to the expressed reasoning above, the meaning (as a language container) of elements should be in a best practice document because they do not create any interoperability issues in browsers.

Here we are reaching the notion of interoperability in which *class of products*. My feeling is that we are mixing "best practices" with "conformance requirements for certain class of products". 

My question: Should the document of Mike Smith become where the *authoring and meaning* conformance requirements are put?


-- 
Karl Dubost
Montréal, QC, Canada
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
Received on Sunday, 28 March 2010 14:27:50 UTC

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