W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2009

Re: Design Principles

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 14:29:32 +0200
Message-ID: <4A1A8F2C.5080708@malform.no>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren On 09-05-24 22.37:
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:22:14 +0200, Larry Masinter 
> <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Are you asking me to critique the HTML document against
>> these design prinicples, the design principles themselves,
>> or something else?
>
> You keep alluding to problems with the design principles, but you 
> never actually state them. Making the issues more explicit is what I 
> am asking for.

Are you alluding to problems with understanding Larry?

No one will subscribe to reasonable principles if, in reality, they are 
(honestly, of course)  interpreted to legitimize things that one are 
opposed to, disagree with and, in fact, not found in the principles. I 
think Larry (and Dan also, if I understood the IRC log of the telcon 
correctly) has pointed to a problem with the /interpretation/ of the 
principles. "Pave the cow paths" has been interpreted to say "do not 
pave anything that perhaps isn't a cow path".


>> Were the suggested amended telcon minutes[1] unclear?
>
> They make it clear you think that the "removal" of the profile 
> attribute on the head element is not supported by the design 
> principles, but other than that there's nothing concrete there as far 
> as I can tell.

You put "removal" in quotes because you are unwilling to admit that 
@profile has been removed. Of course there a problems with the design 
principles when we can't even agree what we are starting from.  But 
perhaps you disagree with them and want the "from scratch" principle 
added? Insisting one's own interpretation in every little detail usually 
isn't fruitful.  (Plus that those that insist on "from scratch" have not 
started completely from scratch. Just as those that insist on continuity 
are not unable to see things "from scratch".)

>> For other examples of actual design principles used not in
>> the DP document, I'd start with the introduction[2],
>> which identifies many intended design considerations.
>>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0232.html
>> [2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#introduction
>>
>> Focusing on the design principles used or referenced in
>> the actual document might be more productive than discussing
>> a document that seems like it was abandoned a while ago.
>
> This doesn't help me much as I don't think the drafted design 
> principles are out of line with the actual specification.

Eventually, that is what one could have discussed to see if there is 
such harmony as you say. Or else it would be simple to claim that the 
fact that you don't see the problem actually underlines it.

I agree with Sam that we have an editor works more as an author than as 
an editor. Is this in the design principles? Is Ian's words about how 
this group will not ever be consensus based as long has he is editor in 
the principles?

I cannot think of anything more ironic said in this debate than Jonas 
Sicking's: I guess Ian can always continue to follow the design 
principles for the document he is producing while others can choose not 
to.

And, yes, I am in support of "parking" the principles.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 12:30:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:37 GMT