Re: Moving past last call for HTML5

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:46:59 +0900, Rob Sayre <> 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