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

Re: AuthConfReq: Presentational Markup

From: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:58:48 -0400
Message-Id: <24A22A6A-61EF-4773-8C09-A267E718C753@la-grange.net>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>

Le 29 mars 2010 à 15:43, Aryeh Gregor a écrit :
> What we should be aiming for is having most top sites validate
> (possibly with warnings).  Not because we've just removed requirements
> until they validate, but because we've removed requirements that
> authors don't care about to the point that it's actually practically
> useful to validate your pages, even if you don't care about
> conformance per se.

hmmm. This got me puzzled a little bit. 
Aiming for validation of top sites might not 
be the best choice. Because we do not know 
the intent of the authors, and the constraints 
of the tools used to produce the markup.

That said, we might think about 
"Why validating a Web page?". 
Or more exactly 
"why people validate today?"

* Learning to code html
* Having a sign-off for quality control
* Enforcing the contract requirements

… something else?

Conformance is orthogonal to validity. 
A page can be valid and not conformant 
(for example using an element with a 
specific meaning in an inappropriate content).

A html checker/lint tool could be useful in a way 
that would reward people for improving the code of 
their page more than slapping them. 
(harder to develop though).

Karl Dubost
Montréal, QC, Canada
Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2010 04:59:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:14 UTC