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 09:38:41 +0100
Message-ID: <4AE80311.2000002@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.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
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> ...
>> 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.
 > ...

Both are concerns.

BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 08:39:38 GMT

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