- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:06:11 +0200
- To: "Henrik Dvergsdal" <henrik.dvergsdal@hibo.no>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:10:12 +0200, Henrik Dvergsdal <henrik.dvergsdal@hibo.no> wrote: > On 4 Jun 2007, at 12:43, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> But if we are to follow this literally, we must, at least in >>> principle, be able to state the rationale behind *every single >>> feature* in HTML5 with use cases, research etc. referring to actual >>> usage in the wild. If not, what parts of the spec can safely be >>> excluded from such scrutiny? >> >> Indeed. Rationale can be mostly found in the WHATWG mailing list >> archives. It has been said multiple times on this list already that >> somebody problably has to volunteer and collect it on a wiki if they >> want it in a more accessible format. > > And what if the rationale and the pros/cons pertaining to a particular > construct or modification cannot be found anywhere? Should it still be > left in the spec? You ask on the mailing list? -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 4 June 2007 12:06:27 UTC