- From: Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@sru.edu>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:48:16 -0400
- To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, <public-html@w3.org>
Sorry that I had to leave the conversation on this early today. I've already volunteered (more than once) to help out with these things, having voiced some rather deeply felt objections to the extant "principles." I would have reiterated that willingness to help in today's conversation had the opportunity arisen. David Dailey ________________________________ From: public-html-request@w3.org on behalf of Ian Hickson Sent: Thu 4/26/2007 3:21 PM To: public-html@w3.org Subject: Proposed Design Principles review I'm done reviewing, and I give it a thumbs up. http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ProposedDesignPrinciples Specifically, I have the following editorial suggestions: * I would recommend moving the links to the definitions of "backwards compatible" and "forwards compatible" to the end of the section, because they don't seem to make anything clearer (in particular, the terms aren't used, so it's not like they're helping the reader understand the section). * To lessen the confusion of the "Don't Break The Web" entry, I recommend removing "New versions of HTML must not break significant numbers of Web pages", and adjusting the rest of the text to not use the word "break". Maybe the entire thing should be renamed to not say "break". Basically we want to be saying that a browser that implements our spec (and other specs that supplement it, like CSS or DOM Core, but not anything else) will render existing content the same way as legacy browsers. I would drop all three Disputed Principles. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 19:48:06 UTC