W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: Design Principles Document update

From: Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:58:40 -0400
Message-ID: <1835D662B263BC4E864A7CFAB2FEEB3D258B9D@msfexch01.srunet.sruad.edu>
To: <public-html@w3c.org>

Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:04:48 -0700
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ProposedDesignPrinciples
 
>I'd like to hear if any of the other principles should be marked  
disputed (if you dispute one, please justify your objection,  
otherwise you are just contradicting, not disputing).

I don't think I'm ready to dispute or even contradict, as I am unclear as to the force that these "Principles" will have in structuring the future of our discussions.
 
If, for example, someone were to use "Don't reinvent the wheel" as augmented by "Evolution not Revolution" as a way to dismiss a proposal that "a direct mode graphics canvas" or "copy and paste" or "XABC modulo HTML" (examples only) become enabled, then I would have to fuss. With sufficient prompting I would probably be able to convert that fuss into contradition, or, apparently better: dispute.* I suspect that the evolution of one species might be viewed as revolution by another, and there are indeed wheels that are useful but not round.
 
So, if silence on this issue were to signal a willingness to be bound by its unknown implications, then I would like to register a willingness to dispute at least some of those unforeseen implications. The particular aphorisms at ProposedDesignPrinciples seem to carry some sort of mystical significance that eludes me.
 
cheers,
David
 *In math, I think a contradiction would be seen as preferrable to a dispute.
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2007 15:58:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 31 March 2007 15:58:35 GMT