This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
HTML5 says (in the section "Authoring tools and markup generators"): "Authoring tools are exempt from the strict requirements of using elements only for their specified purpose, but only to the extent that authoring tools are not yet able to determine author intent." AUWG Comment: Suggest stating that authoring tools should help authors meet the strict requirement (of using elements only for their specified purpose) by not automatically misusing elements or encouraging the author to do so (e.g. in documentation)
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Accepted Change Description: see diff given below Rationale: Concurred with reporter's comments. Please let me know if the new text is still not strict enough. I can add a paragraph about documentation, if you think that would help (I didn't mention documentation in the changes I made, on the basis that in practice it doesn't matter what the tool's documentation says since no user would actually read it).
Checked in as WHATWG revision r4529. Check-in comment: Clarify how much leeway editors get in not being AIs. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=4528&to=4529
Per the proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jan/0245.html, the HTML A11Y TF does not plan to formally work on this issue at this time. This does not mean the TF has no interest in it, but does not have immediate plans to work on it. The TF may review the issue in the future.