- From: Mike Schinkel <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 03:18:03 -0400
- To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, public-html@w3.org
Sander Tekelenburg wrote: > [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.] > That's the first time I've had someone complain about changing the subject when the discussion changes! Usually people complain about the opposite! I changed the subject line because by focusing on one part of your email I changed the subject! My subject was about discussing how UAs handled fragment identifiers NOT about Default Style Sheets. But I won't be passive-aggressive and change it back as it's not a battle I care to fight. >>> 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? > See Jakob's Law of Internet User Experience [1]. >> 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. Then we might be in agreement. :-) -- -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org http://atlanta-web.org - http://t.oolicio.us [1] http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000723.html
Received on Monday, 2 April 2007 07:18:26 UTC