[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#193103: debian-policy: maybe say that programs that output HTML etc. should output valid HTML etc.

On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 07:15:04AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> 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.

That was also my understanding. I quite agree that that's a bug, but I'm
saying that the Debian Policy Manual doesn't need to spell out every
single thing that we already know to be a bug.

Policy covers decisions that have been taken in order that packages
interoperate smoothly with the packaging system and with each other, and
in order to ensure some degree of consistency across the system we
provide. Sometimes it's also used to document a choice that the project
has had to make between multiple technically valid alternatives. It is
not there as a repository of admonitions against every possible thing
which can go wrong with a package.

The submitter of this bug has in the past (e.g. #177523) seemed to have
the impression that if he finds a bug which has the potential to occur
in more than one package, then policy should be amended to forbid that
bug. I'm saying that when the bug is already obvious, such as claiming
compliance with a standard when it doesn't pass that standard's
validator, it is needless busy-work to amend policy, and doing so will
serve absolutely no useful purpose. If people haven't noticed already
that their HTML is invalid, a paragraph in policy is unlikely to make
them notice any more quickly; and in any case the submitter is already
fully entitled to file bugs about it regardless of whether policy says
it's bad or not.


Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

Reply to: