- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:33:21 +0300
- To: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
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 don’t >>> 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 it’s 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 hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 08:33:44 UTC