W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2008

Re: XHTML Basic 1.1 and setting input field to numeric mode

From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:30:01 +0200
Message-ID: <486112F9.10803@eunet.no>
To: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
CC: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, www-html@w3.org

 > The consensus today

Consensus of who? I for one disagree. And so do a load of other 
developers out there, I am sure.

One thing is to advise developers to separate content and presentation. 
Quite another is to use a shotgun to enforce it.

Luca

Tina Holmboe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 05:05:55PM +0200, Luca Passani wrote:
>
>   
>>> We /are/ developers
>>>       
>> sure. You are. I am not denying you are developers. But are you  
>> developers who understand other developers and, above all, the variation  
>> in background, preparation, actual needs that characterize developers'  
>> lives and work?
>>     
>
>   Yes. But more to the point we are developers who understand, and work
>   with, the needs of browser developers, content developers, AND end
>   users.
>
>   That's a standards process in a nutshell.
>
>
>
>
>   
>> are you building standards that will help people do their jobs, dirty  
>> jobs, underpaid jobs, way-too-little-time-to-do-properly-jobs,  
>> need-to-interface-to-a-legacy system-jobs,  
>> need-to-deal-with-crazy-requirements jobs?
>>     
>
>   We are building standards - with caveats for the fact that we are,
>   alas, only human - to help users access content, to help developers
>   create good, high quality content, and to aid other developers in
>   creating applications that can do both.
>
>   Are we creating standards that will, basically, contain everything
>   one, or the other, developer want? Not necessarily, no. Some things
>   will be added, and some removed, that have been shown to be functional
>   or non-functional.             
>
>   I'm afraid it won't necessarily include features added because there
>   is no proper quality process or project manager on a certain job
>   out there.
>
>   Your requirement for STYLE is one, out of many, requirements that we
>   need to balance.
>
>
>
>   
>> utopian view of what the world should be. Well, wake up. People need  
>> tools to do well in their job, not tools that try to force them to buy  
>> someone else's view of what their tools should be.
>>     
>
>   I'm sorry you feel this way. We are trying to provide the best tools
>   for the job, and the STYLE attribute isn't among them. The consensus
>   today is that it mixes presentation in with the code, and it makes
>   for code which is awfully hard to maintain.
>
>   And for a developer, hard-to-maintain is anathema. Surely even in your
>   field of work you'd like to be able to go back and update code without
>   finding yourself having to hunt one elusive little STYLE somewhere in
>   one out of a number of templates which muck up the new layout?
>
>   
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 15:30:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:14 GMT