- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 19:27:01 +0100
- To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 06.02.2011 18:43, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: > On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> It's essential, when in the real world you need to communicate with another >> party about that kind of HTML you're using. For instance, try to write a SoW >> for a project and say "whatever works in the latest version of browsers". > > Specifying "whatever works in the latest version of browsers" or > "HTML5" are not the only options, and neither is especially valuable > in a statement of work. > > Useful information is more detailed and takes forms such as: > > 1) Use markup patterns described in documents L, M, N. > 2) Validate using tool X using options Q and R. Ignore errors A, B, C. > 3) Lint using tool Y. Ignore warnings G, H, I. > 4) Test end result in user agents T, R, V. Yes. But the HTML5 spec defines many patterns, some valid, some not. It allows certain extension points. It's useful to have a name for that it describes, and what modifications/extension are allowed, and how they should be labeled when discussing conformance. I think that's that Noah's change proposal is about. Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 6 February 2011 18:27:43 UTC