Re: Proposing <indent> vs. <blockquote>

Dao Gottwald wrote:
> "markup that expresses semantics is usually preferred to purely 
> presentational markup" -- So you can't deprecate a semantic element in 
> favor of a presentational one.
> "HTML Strikes a balance between semantic expressiveness and practical 
> usefulness." -- Explicitly removing semantics can't be considered as a 
> balance. (I neither think <indent> would be useful.)
I wanted to follow up with these principles which I believe support my 
proposal, i.e. solve a real problem and give users priority by making it 
easy for them:

      Solve Real Problems

SolveRealProblems </topic/SolveRealProblems>: Changes to the spec should 
solve actual real-world problems. Abstract architectures that don't 
address an existing need are less favored than pragmatic solutions to 
problems that web content faces today. And existing widespread problems 
/should/ be solved, when possible.

      Priority of Constituencies

PriorityOfConstituencies </topic/PriorityOfConstituencies>: In case of 
conflict, consider users over authors over implementors over specifiers 
over theoretical purity. In other words costs or difficulties to the 
user should be given more weight than costs to authors; which in turn 
should be given more weight than costs to implementors; which should be 
given more weight than costs to authors of the spec itself, which should 
be given more weight than those proposing changes for theoretical 
reasons alone. Of course, it is preferred to make things better for 
multiple constituencies at once.

-Mike Schinkel -

Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 01:56:04 UTC