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

Re: A Compromise to the Versioning Debate

From: Bruce Boughton <bruce@bruceboughton.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:24:52 +0100
Message-ID: <462405C4.7020204@bruceboughton.me.uk>
To: cadunn <cadunn@vt2000.com>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "Denis Boudreau (WebConforme)" <dboudreau@webconforme.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

cadunn wrote:
> I think we simply need to accept that the Internet *is* the great 
> level playing field. Let's not further bury "Some mute, inglorious 
> Milton..." by ignoring her or him. IMO such disparagement of folks who 
> do not possess the highest of "geek" skills is really beneath what 
> should be a fundamental approach to anything that deals broadly with 
> web specifications. Reaching a level of supreme ability in the chaos 
> of browsers and bugs, and the intricacies of CSS/HTML/XHTML, etc. 
> should make us humble, rather than arrogant.
>
> If we accept that basic spirit of free and total access, then of 
> course there will be "all kinds". Just accept this and get on with 
> delivering what makes the most sense for all.
>
> Thanks, Anne---
>
> Clair
>

Indeed, but this should not be a free pass for introducing new elements 
into the spec without discussing their merits.  I believe that one of 
HTML's primary advantages is its simplicity*.  If we introduce too many 
new elements we run the risk of making it harder for authors of any 
skill level to choose the most appropriate element.  This is not to say 
that we shouldn't introduce new elements, just that we should make sure 
that each has a clear use case which is unambiguous.

Bruce


* It is simple to produce a document that looks mostly right.  It can be 
hard to get it absolutely correct, but for most people this is enough.
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 23:25:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:53 GMT