W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > August 2007

Re: please clarify critical issues in HTML Desing Principles review survey

From: Andrew Maben <andrew@andrewmaben.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:41:22 -0400
Message-Id: <0E3E5E9E-D3A1-47E7-9EDA-572B5EE8F5B8@andrewmaben.com>
Cc: danny@scm.uws.edu.au, matt@mattotto.com, dean@55.co.nz, Maurice Carey <maurice@thymeonline.com>, Roger Johansson <roger@456bereastreet.com>, jason@jasonjgw.net, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
On Aug 20, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
> Perhaps the question wasn't clear, but it would help
> a lot if you would clarify *which issues* you consider
> sufficiently critical that the document should not be published
> before they are addressed.

While I personally would be comfortable with publication "as is", I  
think it may in the end speed up the process if some of the concerns  
raised by others are addressed first. Some strongly felt, and clearly  
argued opinions have been raised.

The most controversial issues appear to be "Pave the Cowpaths" and  
"Solve Real Problems". Dropping these principles would be rather  
draconian, but some clarification may be needed.

In the case of "Cowpaths", it may be obvious, but it can do no harm  
to make explicit that bad practices should not be legitimized merely  
because they are widespread.

"Real World Problems" might be rephrased along the lines of: "Changes  
to the spec should solve actual real-world problems. The emphasis  
should be on providing solutions to existing widespread problems."  
The sentence dealing with "Abstract architectures..." is probably  
unnecessary, may be confusing, and might even be construed as snide  
or condescending. If something is needed to fill the spot, then  
perhaps: "Solutions to theoretically possible future problems should  
be considered as secondary."?

AND On Aug 21, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
> Those are interesting suggestions; I trust you'll communicate
> them to the editors and the WG, if you have not already.

I've also added these comments to the "Do You Support Publication?"  
question in the survey.

Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2007 03:58:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:12 UTC