- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:42:28 +0100
- To: tina@greytower.net
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
On 30 Apr 2007, at 18:05, Tina Holmboe wrote: > > On 1 May, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > >>> A common set of /bugs/ with which new standards/browsers should be >>> compliant? Did I understand you correctly? >> >> I meant to say that we need to define the set of features that are >> essential for remaining compatible with the content on the web, which >> is determined by doing research into what browsers do and studying >> the content that exists on the web today. > > 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/. What use is a specification if nobody can actually use it in the real world? - Geoffrey Sneddon
Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 20:42:34 UTC