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

Re: ISSUE-30 (Longdesc) Change Proposal

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:38:20 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0910281438t69329a47u7445a5b3c8d2df56@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:16 AM, 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.

Agreed. But I don't think that changes anything. Unless the argument
is "since there's one unneccesary feature in the spec it's ok to add
more". If such an argument was made by anyone, that I would not agree
with.

I've successfully campaigned against features before (.tags() and
<dialog>), and I hope to find more to campaign against.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 21:39:14 UTC

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