W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Use Cases for Use Cases (was: [selectors-api] SVG WG Review of Selectors API)

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:25:39 -0700
Message-ID: <49871E83.9030100@w3.org>
CC: public-webapps@w3.org

Hi, Folks-

It seems strange to have to explicitly say this about webapp
technologies, but use cases obviously don't cover all the use cases.

Web applications --the reason we're doing these specs at all-- were not
within the scope of the introduction of HTML, CSS, Javascript, or any of
the technologies that are now the foundations of webapps.  People took
those insufficient scraps and built amazing things with them, far beyond
the intended use cases.  This should be the sign of a well-designed
technology: that it can be adapted to do something the original creator
never envisioned.

Yes, it is good to be methodical about covering all the bases.  It is
less good to limit the potential other uses.

Lachlan Hunt wrote (on 1/28/09 6:40 PM):
> 
> Giovanni Campagna wrote:
>>
>> This is was not a complete use case, it was just an example.
> 
> Well, it's use cases that are needed, not just simple examples that are
> trivial to make up.

Sorry, what precisely do you think use cases are?  They are examples of
what people will want to do with the technology.  Stop artificially
raising the bar for what you find acceptable rationales for inclusion.

You don't like namespaces: we get that.  But they exist, and we have to
address them.

You claim that there were too many technical challenges to including
namespaces in this version; the SVG WG accepted that, and empathize with
the notion of shipping an imperfect or incomplete spec, rather than the
ideal spec, because of time constraints, implementation and shipping
deadlines, and market pressures.  That's reality.

But please stop pretending that there are no use cases for namespace
support, or that the use cases that are raised are insufficient, to be
addressed by the Selectors API.  That's not reality.

People want to mix markup in documents, even markup we've never heard of
or don't approve of.  How we address that need is a technical issue, not
an ideological or rhetorical one.

Defining use cases is done to ensure that the known cases are covered by
the technology, not to exclude options.  Meeting use cases and
requirements is necessary, but not sufficient.

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 16:25:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:29 GMT