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

Re: ISSUE-30 (Longdesc) Change Proposal

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:34:28 +0100
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "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
Message-ID: <op.u2h4rq0x64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:16:46 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:
> 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.

I think the concern is more about the size of the platform. I.e. splitting  
a feature into its own specification does not really qualify.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 08:35:21 GMT

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