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

Re: Request for Decision: Design Principles

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:07:46 -0700
Message-Id: <27ED2C95-D92F-41D1-A95D-652566E90709@apple.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
To: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>


On Apr 18, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:

>
> Hi, David-
>
> Dailey, David P. wrote:
>> Representing the very small minority who have written against the  
>> design
> > principles
> <snip/>
> > I am not sensing any great support for my perspective so it is
> > probably a non-issue.
>
> I have not replied to your posts because I thought you were doing a  
> fine job stating your objections yourself, not because I didn't  
> agree.  In fact, I agreed with you more often than not.
>
> I think that these Design Principles will often be useful, but to  
> treat them as holy writ seems extreme (especially since, as other  
> holy writs, they can be interpreted to argue 2 sides of many issues).

I don't think anyone has called for treating them as "holy writ".  
They are guidelines, not inviolate rules.

> I see no clear benefit in establishing such a rigid stance.  But  
> what I think they would be very effective at doing is establishing  
> a "power base" at the outset of the group that would quash  
> different opinions later on, a practice I find dubious at best.

These are issues that I expect will come up over and over again. I  
think it would be a waste of our time to re-argue the underlying  
issues repeatedly. I would be much more sympathetic to disagreement  
with specific things in the principles than in disagreement with  
recording them at all.

> I suspect that most people will not really care enough (or have the  
> time) to about review and vote on the design principals (much less  
> fully understand the implications)... but that once they were voted  
> in by the core constituency that does seem to care strongly, it  
> would be hard to defend against misuse.  I think we should be more  
> open and flexible as a group.

If people don't have time to read and think about this fairly brief  
document, how will they find the time to participate in the  
discussion in an informed way?

> For that reason alone, not any merit or deficit of the principals  
> themselves, I would be against making them Official.  I'm in favor  
> of using them as "gentle reminders".

That being said, if we put them up for a vote, you'll have the  
opportunity to express this point of view.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 21:08:07 GMT

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