[whatwg] Provding Better Tools

[Lachlan Hunt]

Mike Schinkel wrote:
> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> It's not up to a specification to specify a conformance requirement 
>> stating which implementations can be used, nor mandating particular 
>> implementation details.
> 
> By providing the suggest test I was trying to get people to use a 
> conforming component for all the reasons I previously stated that 
> most won't.

The spec already requires authors and authoring tools to produce
conforming documents, and requires user agents to use conforming 
parsers.  It's just that the specific implementations and implementation 
details are not for the spec to determine.

If someone can guarantee output from processor using techniques like 
those used in WordPress, then such implementations would be considered 
conforming.  It's just that there is evidence to suggest that such 
techniques often fail miserably, and so implementers should avoid them.

> You do agree that's a worthy goal, right?  You've said as much in 
> numerous prior posts.  If so, how can something be put in the spec to 
> get people to use a conforming component?

I think you're looking for the wrong kind of solution.  The way to do 
that is to make the spec as well-defined and easy to understand and 
implement as possible.  If it's easy to implement, vendors will 
implement it.  If they can make their tools easy to use, authors will 
use them.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/