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

Re: AuthConfReq: Presentational Markup

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Message-ID: <1566267212.69235.1270025503366.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org>
"Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> My personal opinion, which I think I stated a long time ago when Rob
> Sayre first brought up this topic, is that I'd prefer to get rid of
> all the authoring conformance requirements.
> 
> There simply is too much controversy for too little value to make
> this worth it for us. Instead we should leave it up to lint tools 
> to create best practices.
> 
> This not only saves us a bunch of work, it also gives lint tool
> authors more freedom to develop whichever practices that they deem
> suitable.

Leaving the definition of document conformance criteria to "lint tool" developers doesn't remove the need to think through the definition. It just makes it Someone Else's Problem.

I'd still expect markup generator developers to want the criteria to be such that the output of their products isn't considered to be in error by lint tools. If this expectation is correct, there's still a need to come to mutual agreement on the rules--i.e. to standardize them. Kicking that standardization work out of this WG would only have the benefit that developers of products that are exclusively markup consumers wouldn't have to watch how the document conformance sausage is made. But even browsers these days are also producers: For example, the contentEditable feature set should probably be informed by document conformance criteria.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2010 08:52:30 UTC

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