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

Re: Design Principles Document update

From: Preston L. Bannister <preston@bannister.us>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 09:27:46 -0700
Message-ID: <7e91ba7e0704010927o5564a28fkcf488c40bdf74058@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-html@w3c.org
Don't know who put up this page, but I very strongly agree with the theme.
I do not think we need huge new inventions (as example "XForms" comes to
mind).  We do not need new chunks that seem like a good idea now, but will
turn out to be a Dodo.  I do think we need to focus on the core of HTML as
you might teach to a new web application developer.  That means there is a
lot of cruft left over (from things that seemed at the time a good idea)
that falls outside the core - which browser vendors may or may not support.

Getting any sort of consensus  on this will be interesting. :)



On 3/31/07, Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu> wrote:
>
>
> 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 Monday, 2 April 2007 13:52:53 UTC

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