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

Re: [HDP] Response to Review of HTML Design Principles Questionnaire

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:08:05 +0200
Message-ID: <2ea06f2cce7f72a2e4e4d55bfe1c4209@10013.local>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: public-html@w3.org

2007-08-23 05:58:24 +0200 Lachlan Hunt:
> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> The headers issue just hasn't been looked at yet.

We are looking at it constantly.

>  Regardless of whether or 
> not headers="" is considered conforming, it will definitely have processing 
> requirements specified in due course, which is what this issue is about.

Based upon your interpretation of it, this is definitely not certain. Today, not all UAs support headers="". If all would support it, because they had to be compatible with existing content, this would be an improvement.

>>> This is my proposed rewording:
>> A new, honest, title is all this principle needs: «UAs Should Support
>> *Significant Existing* Content». Then we would have understood what
>> this is about:
>> Statistics and percentages, again and again.
> I didn't say anything about statistics.  Stats by themselves are not the only 
> way to show that something is significant, it's just one of many factors to 
> consider.

Significant what? The issue is what, of existing content which doesn't belong in HTML5 itself (the author requirements), should HTML5-UAs still be required to support.

>  From IRC:
> <othermaciej> there's a lot of things to consider
> <othermaciej> - does the feature fulfill a needed use case?
> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20070823#l-284

So, we are to have a double debate? First we decide use cases for the author requirements. And then, when that is decided, we go looking for what we ruled out of HTML5 (the author requirements) and go looking for use cases for them also?

>> This way, it is actually the opposite of what it looks like: It is not 
>> about which old features to support (the market decides that anyhow), but 
>> about which old features UAs should have the blessing to ignore: Sorry AT 
>> users, but we abide by the law.
> Overreacting and reaching incorrect conclusions doesn't help. [...]

But better wording in the titles would definitely help. Rather than new variants of «if possible» in their explanations.
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 10:08:18 UTC

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