- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:05:15 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > > Ian Hickson wrote: >>>> Yes, absolutely. Indeed it's one of our principles: >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies >>>> >>>> Interoperability and compatibility with existing deployed servers is >>>> orders of magnitude more important to me than pedantic compliance to >>>> other specifications. Specifications exist to help move civilisation >>>> forward, not to provide arbitrary restrictions on progress. When a >>>> specification gets in the way of improving the Web, it should be >>>> changed or displaced. >>> I think you're reading something into the design principle it doesn't >>> say. >> >> Well, that's what I meant when I contributed to that principle, so if >> it doesn't convey that to you, then it should be edited to make that >> clearer. > > OK, > > so let's try to clarify this one. Does this design principle justify > being non-compliant with base specifications, in order to somewhat > reduce implementation complexity? I think it justifies changing base specs (which is generally a pain for spec writers) where such changes have a net benefit for the other communities (users, authors, implementors). -- "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?" -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2008 17:08:48 UTC