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

Re: ISSUE-30 (Longdesc) Change Proposal

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:16:46 +0100
Message-ID: <4AE7EFDE.2090907@gmx.de>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
Jonas Sicking wrote:
> ...
> In short, the same benefit you get from removing any redundant
> feature. The question should never be "why not have this feature in
> the spec", the question should always be "why should we have this
> feature in the spec".
> ...

Somebody once said: "the optimal number of optional features in a spec 
is zero", and "you're done with a spec when there's nothing left to 
remove" (maybe it way Yaron G.).

Of course that doesn't always work well, but there's a lot of truth in 
it. But: if we're really concerned with the size of the spec than there 
are far bigger parts that could be removed.

BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 07:17:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:51 GMT