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

Re: FW: AuthConfReq: Presentational Markup

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:39:30 +0200
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100331013930063993.c32e1da0@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Larry Masinter, Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:59:25 -0700:
  […]
> I'd suggest is a clearer separation of conformance classes […]
> (a) document conformance: […]
> (b) authoring conformance: […]
> (c) validator conformance: […]
> as well as being clearer about the distinction between:
> (d) document processor conformance: […]
> (e) user agent conformance: […]
> (f) browser conformance: […]

> Some opinions (to be turned into more concrete edits or bug
> reports, if anyone agrees with these):
> 
>  (a) I would argue against making any previously valid content invalid
>      unless
> (1) it was never implemented as specified
> (2) there is demonstrable harm to others that making the feature
>   invalid will repair.
> 
> For "interoperability", documents (a) need to be accepted by
> all document processors (d).  Conforming documents should be
> conservative (robustness principle) even though document processors
> are liberal.
> 
> I would argue that presentational markup don't meet these criteria.

6 different conformance classes. But not a single definition of what 
'presentational markup' is? E.g. isn't the @target attribute 
presentational? It is previously (that is: now) valid, but only in 
transitional doctypes. I think <font> belongs in a league of its own - 
both when it comes to its presentational-ness as well as when it comes 
to the question of whether it should be permitted to live on. But the 
rest of the presentational features (from HTML4), if they do any harm, 
then what can it be demonstrated to be?
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2010 23:40:06 UTC

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