Re: Design Principles updated

On Apr 12, 2007, at 10:33, Laurens Holst wrote:

> Henri Sivonen schreef:
>>> This takes a position on the <b> and the <i> elements. I donít  
>>> think it should do that.
>> Do you want to this WG to continue the <i> vs. <em> permathread  
>> that has been going on since at least 1993?
> What kind of question is that. This has nothing to do with <i> and  
> <em>.
> What I say is that I do not think the design principles should take  
> positions on specific elements.

The logical consequences of the design principles effectively do. I  
guess it is a matter of taste if one prefers these consequences to be  
made explicit examples or left implicit.

> If itís a permathread, that would only suggest that there are very  
> different opinions on the matter, and the design principles should  
> stay away from these kind of special mentions and stick to global  
> concepts.

The point of the design principles is to establish that certain  
fundamental points of disagreement have been resolved in a certain  
way (for good reason and based on experience of real-world  
considerations) so that we don't need to re-discuss the fundamentals  
every time there's a decision to be made.

For example, it wouldn't be productive to have the SGML discussion  
every time we examine a parsing algorithm detail. Fortunately, the  
Charter pre-empts the SGML permathread.

Henri Sivonen

Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 08:33:44 UTC