- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:00:05 +0300
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
On Jul 7, 2009, at 03:10, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Jul 6, 2009, at 4:37 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > >> ...? Or do you think we should actually make summary="" conforming, >> as >> opposed to a down-played error? > > I think the difference between down-played error and regular error > is not very meaningful. I don't like downplayed errors. On one hand they want to be errors but on the other, they are something that are designed to be easily ignorable. I have dragged my feet with them hoping they'd go away. One day I almost started implementing them but then I got a higher- priority item to deal with. > The actual material difference between different diagnostic classes > is not friendliness in the validator, but rather whether authors can > still use the feature if they have a requirement (self-imposed or > otherwise) to produce fully conforming content. > > Thus, I think a suggested non-error diagnostic would be better than > a requirement for a down-played error, in that it would give the > advanced experts who choose to disregard the warning the opportunity > to have their content be conforming. I don't really like spec-prescribed warnings, either, because I fear that if we start doing normative warnings, people start wanting to make failures to adhere to their code style aesthetics as normative warnings when the discussion won't affect valid/invalid. However, if we could get rid of downplayed errors and avoid introducing multiple conformance profiles by introducing a handful of normative warnings, let's try it. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 07:00:49 UTC