- From: Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:46:58 -0400
- To: www-html@w3.org
Tina Holmboe wrote: > In other words the WG is to study, and document, both good and bad > practices of browsers and authors today, and tailor the specification > to allow them? > > It is difficult to conclude otherwise, since you yourself admit that > most of what IS out there is "extremely broken HTML". The idea, then, > become that the WG will simply make the bad the good and that's that? > > Much markup on the web today /is/ poor. We /do not/ fix that by > redefining reality to make it /good/. I think it's important to realize that HTML5 is a bundle of several kinds of conformance profiles -- browsers, to be conformant, must support interoperable error handling in the face of strange input. But this is orthogonal to the conformance requirements placed on authors. For instance, suppose that for reasons of interoperability & not breaking the web the <tt> element must be supported by browsers (default rendering with a monospaced font, etc.). It would be entirely reasonable to simultaneously require authors to not use this element, for whatever reason -- it's purely presentational, etc. I think much of your disagreement with Lachlan, Tina, is that sometimes these separate and separable conformance classes are being confused in the heat of the moment. Ted -- Edward O'Connor hober0@gmail.com Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 17:47:27 UTC