- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:25:12 -0500
- 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