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

Re: The arbitrary 80% (Baby Steps)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 04:27:01 +0200
Message-ID: <b409b81c25266f2e4339dba2d747fda4@10013.local>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>

On 2007-08-15 03:29:10 +0000 Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>> [...] our goal is to hit the 80% mark
>> 
>> 80% - again.

> 80% may be misunderstood. [...]
> EVERY USER deserves to be catered for by HTML. [...]
> HOWEVER. [...]
> For example, at the 
> moment it is not in the scope of HTML to handle writing photo editing 
> applications like Photoshop or movie editing applications like Final Cut Pro.

If you include Photoshop in your 100%, then even your 100% is irrelevant.

> The reason for having limits like this is that while the users are finite, 
> the possible types of content that could be written in HTML are infinite. The 

What has this to do with HEADERS=? 

> only way we could cater to every single possible type of document and 
> application in HTML is to make a language so complicated that virtually 
> nobody could understand how to use it.

CSS has defined the media types HTML are aimed at: Screen, Print, Speech, Braille, Braille Printers, Handheld, Projection, Text-Based Terminals, TV-based presentations  (and their users).

> We want to keep the language as simple as possible while still catering to 
> the majority of content producers (and while catering to all users).

If «Be good» means «take away headers=», then I must disagree.

You entered the HEADERS= debate, siting scarcely documented things that we have heard you say before. When you were invited to a deeped debate, you said the purpose was just to say some general things. Preferring now to compare Photoshop users to speech browser users.

Intepreting you as off-topic was kind. «Stop researching this issue» would be realistic.

>> 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.

And I wonder if this brought us any nearer.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 02:27:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:04 GMT