Re: ACTION-128: Draft @summary voting text in conjunction with PF

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Minor suggestion: change the spec to say "conformance checkers are 
> required to >>>have the ability to<<< warn the user...", i.e. without 
> requiring that this be optional or specifying what the default must be 
> if an option is provided.

That seems to defy the point. The idea is to avoid the possibility of 
making the same design error that was previously made with HTML4 Strict vs 
HTML4 Transitional, where authors who opted into Transitional validation 
saw an unqualified "pass" and never saw the warnings about Transitional.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 19:14:11 UTC