On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 03:25:00AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 09:13:05PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote: > > On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 01:25:52AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > > On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 04:20:03AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote: > > > > If there is a checklist for quality, then maybe say that programs that > > > > output HTML etc. should output valid HTML etc. > > > > > > > > E.g. one installs a program that makes a photo gallery of images, into > > > > a web page. But this page doesn't pass the HTML validator. > > > > > > Surely we don't need policy to say that a bug is a bug. It's quite clear > > > that invalid HTML is a bug (maintainers may not think it's a > > > particularly urgent bug, but it's a bug nevertheless). No need for > > > policy to state the obvious. > > > > i think the author means _valid_ html, not just invalid html. > > I think you've read somebody's statements backwards, or something ... at > any rate I'm confused now. oops. i probably should have read what i typed. i think the original poster of this bug means that it would be a bug for a program to produce html that doesnt validate according to the html dtd's. -- gram
Attachment:
pgpMSw3grTDe3.pgp
Description: PGP signature