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