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

RE: Request for Decision: Design Principles

From: Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:48:13 -0400
Message-ID: <1835D662B263BC4E864A7CFAB2FEEB3D258BCC@msfexch01.srunet.sruad.edu>
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, <public-html@w3.org>

 
On Tue 4/17/2007 11:46 PM Maciej Stachowiak wrote

>I'd like to request that the chairs call the question (using whatever 
>decision procedure is appropriate) on the HTML Design Principles set 
>forth by myself and others.

Representing the very small minority who have written against the design principles (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0679.html), (the rest of us naysayers are all very quiet)  I mentioned on Monday that I would be making some response to your response Sunday to my original post almost three days earlier. I am not sensing any great support for my perspective so it is probably a non-issue. However, absent the luxury of sufficient time to prepare my response, I will craft a quickie reply.

I would characterize my objections as persistent, because I perceive no lack of clarity in the charter. (This has been shaken a bit by some recent disputes over its language and implications). You have said you like design principles. I have said I don't.
 
If they are to become adopted I would prefer a) that they be renamed as guidelines rather than principles. (They are just too fuzzy and ambiguous in my mind to qualify for the term "principles"). At times people seem to think of them as axioms from which theorems may be proven. They simply aren't. 
 
I believe, as per our previous exchange that several "friendly amendments" as you call them could be made to improve the wording, and clarify the meanings. The examples you provided for "degrade gracefully" for example helped me to understand that one. The title of "evolutionnotrevolution" is disputed as well as the last sentence that makes no sense.  
 
I would have to reread our exchange more thoroughly to see what other friendly amendments it suggests.
 
In the meantime -- please mark "don't reinvent the wheel" as disputed. I have what I believe is substantive disagreement with that (including my recent note at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/1101.html ) in which alternatives (albeit unpleasant)  for drawing image-like objects  in the browser using javascript are demonstrated, hence showing that <canvas> does something already doable. Your response to my examples, fails to convince me, and yet to respond in detail, I would need a bit more time before a question is called. I don't like this one at all. If it had been in place when Mosaic was built, we would still have gopher.
 
regards,
David Dailey
 
 
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 04:48:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:43 UTC