Re: updated cite definition - please review

2013-08-25 20:31, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> Hi Jukka,
>
>     it will declare much of actual usage (the part you did not
>     classify as typical) as invalid.
>

My sentence started with "if it actually tightens up something to a 
relevant degree,"

> Can you provide data to show usage that shows much of actual usage is 
> not covered by typical uses?

I see no reason to. spend time in compiling such information, since the 
point is that either way, "tightening up" is a wrong move. If it does 
not actually exclude substantial amount of existing usage, it is 
pointless: telling people to do what they do anyway serves no purpose. 
If it does, it declares much of actual usage as invalid, for no good reason.

If there were an element called <z> in HTML, with italic as default 
rendering in browsers, and some authors used it to denote names of 
trees, and some other to denote impressive things, and yet some other to 
mark up green things, and all the rest using for various purposes, it 
would be pointless to discuss what the "right" usage is or to collect 
statistics of existing usage, or to study definitions of <z> in past 
specifications. The only sensible thing that browsers, search engines, 
and other software could do, and would do, is to treat <z> as an element 
with unknown meaning and no effect, except for the default rendering (if 
it is an established practice).

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Received on Sunday, 25 August 2013 18:19:25 UTC