- From: Mike Schinkel <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:55:28 -0400
- To: Dao Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Dao Gottwald wrote:
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ProposedDesignPrinciples
> "markup that expresses semantics is usually preferred to purely
> presentational markup" -- So you can't deprecate a semantic element in
> favor of a presentational one.
> "HTML Strikes a balance between semantic expressiveness and practical
> usefulness." -- Explicitly removing semantics can't be considered as a
> balance. (I neither think <indent> would be useful.)
I wanted to follow up with these principles which I believe support my
proposal, i.e. solve a real problem and give users priority by making it
easy for them:
Solve Real Problems
SolveRealProblems </topic/SolveRealProblems>: Changes to the spec should
solve actual real-world problems. Abstract architectures that don't
address an existing need are less favored than pragmatic solutions to
problems that web content faces today. And existing widespread problems
/should/ be solved, when possible.
Priority of Constituencies
PriorityOfConstituencies </topic/PriorityOfConstituencies>: In case of
conflict, consider users over authors over implementors over specifiers
over theoretical purity. In other words costs or difficulties to the
user should be given more weight than costs to authors; which in turn
should be given more weight than costs to implementors; which should be
given more weight than costs to authors of the spec itself, which should
be given more weight than those proposing changes for theoretical
reasons alone. Of course, it is preferred to make things better for
multiple constituencies at once.
--
-Mike Schinkel
http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/
http://www.welldesignedurls.org
http://atlanta-web.org - http://t.oolicio.us
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 01:56:04 UTC