W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: [whatwg] Default (informal) Style Sheet

From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 08:42:30 +0100
Message-Id: <p0624062cc2365f319cc2@[192.168.0.101]>
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, public-html@w3.org

[Mike, you are making the communication more difficult by changing the
Subject header without a good reason. Doing so fragments the discussion,
makes it harder for people to keep track of what is said in relation to what.
I'm changing the Subject back to what it was.]

At 00:13 -0400 UTC, on 2007-04-02, Mike Schinkel wrote:

> Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

[...]

[<http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#rendering>]

>> What instead this should say is something like "When taken to a fragment
>> identifier, UAs must clearly indicate the referenced point in the content to
>> the user". Because that *clarity* is what counts, not *how* that clarity is
>> provided. For example, a UA could indicate the target by hiliting it for a
>> couple of seconds, as iCab does. To me, as a user, that's a way more useful
>> and elegant solution.
>
> That's not a great solution because of color blindness

Agreed. That emphasises my point, doesn't it? No particular implementation
should be mandated by the HTML spec, because it won't fit every conceivable
browsing environment.

[...]

>> Similarly, it would make sense for the spec to say that
>> "by default, occurences of title attributes must be clearly indicated to the
>> user", and "occurences of LINK elements must be clearly indicated to the
>> user". But not *how* they should be indicated.
>>
> Though I get your point somewhat, defining "how" is helpful because it
> increases consistency.

What exactly, in the context of presentation, would be good about consistency
*across* UAs?

> Maybe a "How (but only where applicable)" is the
> better solution.

I've argued before for naming examples of possible implementations in the
spec. That would help both UA authors and Web publishers better understand
what the spec's intention is. But that's something entirely different than
*requiring* a specific implementation.

[...]

> There is a necessary balance that needs to be struck between innovation
> and consistency.  If innovation always won, there would be no need for
> any standards bodies, but then we'd see no progress, only chaos.
> Swinging the pendulum too far in either direction is dangerous.

That was my point exactly. I raised specific objections for taking the spec
so far as to specify default presentations, and asked what would be gained by
ignoring them.


-- 
Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Monday, 2 April 2007 06:49:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:42 UTC