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

Re: The arbitrary 80% (Baby Steps)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:45:43 +0000 (UTC)
To: Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>
Cc: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708150633360.22575@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Jason White wrote:
> So stated, the principle is irrelevant to the issues under discussion. 
> In all instances (form fields, tables, images and other media objects, 
> image maps, etc.), HTML already supports the use cases for these 
> features, both in the form of HTML 4 and in the HTML 5 draft. The 
> objections raised against the omission of certain features (@headers, 
> @for, @longdesc, @usemap, etc.), is that while continuing to support the 
> use cases for the underlying feature, HTML would thereby fail to support 
> 100% of the users by offering no (or inadequate) means of using the 
> feature (a media element, a form, a table etc.) in a way that enables 
> and facilitates proper accessibility.

Ah, ok. I don't really see how, but I look forward to seeing the detailed 
description of this problem when I get around to the relevant wiki page.

> > > I don't find 80% in any design principle.
> > 
> > I have added Baby Steps. Note though that the design principles are 
> > not and never will be a complete description of how language design 
> > works.
> This is out of order as a matter of process: unilaterally deciding to 
> add a principle to the draft which hasn't been discussed here, and on 
> which consensus hasn't been reached, oversteps the legitimate role of an 
> editor.

Ok. I don't really have much time for process. If someone wants to add a 
princinple, they should do so. If someone else disagrees with it, they 
should move it to the contentious part of the principles page, and explain 
why. I'm not interested in having to go through "approval" and "consensus" 
and all that just for a wiki page. We'd never get anything done.

> This thread shows that the proposed principle is indeed contentious, and 
> therefore it should not be added to the design principles until and 
> unless it has been clarified

I clarified it when I put it in the wiki... In fact I haven't heard any 
comments one way or the other on this principle since I clarified it, 
except for a comment on IRC to the effect that it was well written.

> and agreed to by the working gorup.

In a group this size you'll never get agreement from the whole group.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2007 06:45:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC