- From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 20:46:23 -0400
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
> > not useless - they do serve as a specification that implementors > > at least consider attempting to adhere to - but this prevents neither > > bugs nor proprietary extensions nor failure to implement new features > > in a timely fashion. > > Sure, but we've got ALL of those problems right now, and in spades. > Perhaps uselessness is in the eye of the beholder? "useless" is an absolute. it's probably more useful to talk in terms of relative utility between one approach and another than in absolutes. > > otoh, a requirement in the specifications to change functionality in > > a way which causes more pain to users (e.g. forbidding browser > > interpretation of improperly-labelled content) is highly likely > > to be ignored. > > I have to disagree. Those kinds of "pain to users" rules are in fact > standard practice for XML work pretty much across the board. XML users may be different than HTML users. HTML is mostly written for eyeballs. Raise the barrier for XHTML too high, and it won't get used as widely as you'd like. Keith
Received on Saturday, 1 June 2002 14:43:14 UTC