W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Moving past last call for HTML5

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:25:12 -0500
Message-ID: <49A3F538.4040306@intertwingly.net>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>, www-archive@w3.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:46:59 +0900, Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> It seems to me that the requirements placed on documents are not 
>> required for interoperation.
> Surely for interoperation with validators, editors that refuse to load 
> documents that do not meet the requirements, and future software that 
> might do different things with invalid documents it is important that 
> documents meet the requirements?

I don't believe that interoperation with validators (or test suites) is 
what RFC 2119 is meant to address.  I have plenty of friends at the IETF 
who I am sure could help address this part of the question.

Given the statistics I have seen thrown around, an editor that refused 
to load documents which aren't conformant would find little use.  Do you 
know of such editors?

Future proofing is a valid concern, but I don't think it applies to the 
specific cases that we have been discussing recently.  Marking summary, 
profile, or even property non-conformant will have very little near-term 
benefit in terms of making such attributes available for future 
revisions of HTML.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 13:25:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:34 UTC