W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Support Existing Content

From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 18:37:28 +0100
Message-Id: <86E4F712-3D2C-415E-972C-DE9CB15B7BD2@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
To: "Jeff Schiller" <codedread@gmail.com>

I don't think it matters.

UAs /are/ going to go down that route anyway. I really think it's  
time to move on, like I said early, even if the spec was to specify  
"draconian" rules, the UAs wouldn't implement them, so let's just  
move along.

On 4 May 2007, at 17:41, Jeff Schiller wrote:

> Woof!  Ok, I'd like to apologize for getting off into "analogy" world
> here.  To get things back on track:
> Gareth, is the technical motive behind your position that you believe
> user agents may incorrectly process non-conforming documents ?  If the
> HTML5 spec covers how the user agents should process non-conforming
> documents, then I fail to see how this would be possible.
> Jeff
> On 5/4/07, Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/4/07, Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I'm sure we are all aware that grammatical errors in texts /can/
>> > completely mislead a reader unintentionally.
>> Sure, I will concede this.  There are some grammatical errors that  
>> can
>> mislead a reader unintentionally.  There are other errors that a
>> reader can perfectly understand without any loss of meaning.  But  
>> does
>> not mean you should place a draconian restriction that all
>> communication must be grammatically correct or the communication is
>> disallowed?
>> That may be fine for libraries consisting of legal or medical
>> libraries, but not for libraries available to the masses.  I  
>> certainly
>> still want to read my Huck Finn and Robinson Crusoe...
Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 17:37:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:21:02 UTC