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

Re: Design Principles

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 14:55:32 +0200
To: "Leif Halvard Silli" <lhs@malform.no>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uuhkuurj64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Mon, 25 May 2009 14:29:32 +0200, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren On 09-05-24 22.37:
>> 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?

The second sentence of the email you are quoting says so:

"I am just trying to understand your position."
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0308.html


> 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".

As has been pointed out, that interpretation is incorrect. More interesting would be examples were the design principles have not been followed. Larry suggested on IRC yesterday that the Origin header may be such an example. I haven't entirely thought that through yet but did note that Origin came from somewhere else.


>> 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".)

With HTML5 we did not start from HTML4. We did end up with something that resembles HTML4 in a lot of ways (at least in terms of feature set). If we follow the new Recommendation path set out by the W3C properly (i.e. ensure multiple interoperable implementations) I do not think we need to do the same for HTML6 although evaluating features is of course always good.


>> 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 don't really follow what you're saying here.


> 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?

That seems more about process than how HTML needs to evolve.


> 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.»

I do not think this quote is helpful out of context.


> And, yes, I am in support of "parking" the principles.

I'm ambivalent as to what to do.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 12:56:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:03 UTC