[whatwg] Provding Better Tools
lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au
Wed Dec 6 21:38:32 PST 2006
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
More information about the whatwg