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

Re: Raising issues in a way that the editors will pay attention to them

From: Henrik Dvergsdal <henrik.dvergsdal@hibo.no>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 13:29:32 +0200
Message-Id: <930CEE80-B6F5-4996-BEF7-063FAAF1D349@hibo.no>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

On 1 Jun 2007, at 02:40, Ian Hickson wrote:

>  * Include links to relevant research on the wiki page. That could be:
>     * Links to pages that are working around the lack of the  
> feature being
>       proposed.
>     * Surveys (even of a few dozen sites) showing authoring  
> practices, so
>       that we can determine authoring patterns around the topic. (I  
> might
>       take such surveys to greater lengths if possible and useful by
>       running similar types of scans at Google.)
>     * Test cases showing what existing browsers do.
>    Making proposals with no research is another good way to lose
>    credibility fast.

This requirement conforms very well to design principles such as  
"Support Existing Content", "Don't Reinvent The Wheel", "Pave The  
Cowpaths" etc. However, it effectively blocks out *novel* proposals  
that may be related to principles such as "Solve Real Problems",  
"Media Independence", "Universal Access" etc. Do we really need to be  
this conservative?

Received on Monday, 4 June 2007 11:31:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:22 UTC