- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:31:20 -0700
- To: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'Lachlan Hunt'" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-html@w3.org
On Mar 25, 2007, at 4:01 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote: > > While your reply was actually very helpful to me, I'd like to bring > up a > point. The approach you describe is evidently a good and proper > approach > taken by very seasoned standards professionals. > > However, my understanding was that the W3C wanted to open this up > to people > using HTML in the real world in order to get better perspective on > issues. > The approach of requiring a well defined use-case prior to > discussion very > much discourages brainstorming. I believe that if you attack every > idea with > a rigid methodology even before is can be discussed it will have a > chilling > effect on discussion and it will stifle innovation. > > On the other hand, if I misunderstood the intent of the W3C opening > up the > debate to "ordinary web developers" then forgive me for > misunderstanding. Probably the best way to inject ideas, if one is not an expert on standards work, is to raise use cases and problems they would face in the current spec, rather than to jump straight to solutions. A problem without a solution is useful, since then people can work on figuring out the solution should be in light of the problem. A solution without a problem is not as useful, since then others have to guess what problem it is trying to solve, if any. Personally, I try to point out specific problems and also propose at least one possible solution when raising a spec issue, so that it is clear that the problem is reasonably solvable. But I would sooner raise a problem without a solution than vice versa. Regards, Maciej
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2007 23:32:13 UTC