W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2006

Re: Selector for parent/predecessor?

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 08:04:03 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200608220704.k7M743e28129@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: www-style@w3.org

> 1) That the Nazis didn't kill millions of Jews in World War II.
> 2) We never actually went to the moon.
> 3) The World is flat. (No, really.)
> 4) The CSS3-UI definition of :read-only makes perfect sense.

The difference in the cases of the general poor quality of the use of
web technology is that anyone who would be able understand the report
etc. can verify it for themselves by doing view source on a very small
sample of typical web sites (not that even that is necessary, as running
something other than an out of a box configuration of IE will cause many
sites to break in normal use).  In my view, it is a waste of resources
to consume man weeks of time to do a formal study on that.

When you were a child, did you insist on reading a study report
before stopping playing with matches?  Did your parents only tell
you to stop after reading one?  (In that case, I would be surprised
if such reports didn't exist, but people make sensible decisions
without needing to see one.)

It's a bit like lawyers.  Although lawyers would argue that you should
not make legal decisions without consulting them, ordinary people, even
in business, make such judgements all the time, e.g., they make judgements
that a supplier has the right to license copyrights, or that the software
coding technique they are using is "obvious" in a patent sense.  Nowadays,
both of those can be a rather riskier decision than the case of the 
de facto poor quality of web coding.
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 07:04:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:46 GMT