- From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:51:24 +0000
- To: www-html@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: > If by this you mean that the XHTML2 specification doesn't define > processing rules for its language, then I agree. But that's a bug, not a > feature. We need detailed conformance requirements so that we can have > uniformity of implementations. That is only a bug if the intent of the language is to be imperative; the original intent of HTML, and that of XHTML2, is much more declarative. In that sort of respect, natural language is also buggy. (A lot of your market talks about controlling the user experience, but the processing rules in the human, which depend on environment, history and sensory defects and differences, are not well defined, which means that you can only control the output of the technology, not the desired user experience.) -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Sunday, 25 January 2009 19:52:34 UTC