Re: Moving forward? (issue tracking, spec review, shaping email discussions)

On 2007-05-30 14:31:08 +0200 Laura Carlson <> wrote:

> On 5/29/07, Dan Connolly <> wrote:
>> One idea for a plan is to start review

> I propose that the working group discuss the HTML 5 Design Principles
> as one of the next items it tackles and reaches consensus on them. We
> all come from different backgrounds with different experiences. Coming
> to agreement on guiding principles would aid in communication and
> understanding. It would help avoid needless arguments and churning of
> issues. Ultimately consensus of guiding principles and definition of
> terms would benefit working group progress." [2]

The «test questions» by Lachlan Hunt which you quoted (below), seem very relevant when reviewing the text and discussing features in detail. Do those questions perhaps examplify the kind of principles you want us to have? Somehow, I would rather call them «reviewing principles». 

> Also, has the working group agreed that the following are indeed the
> questions [3] that need to be answered for each feature:
>> * What are the use cases?
>> * What problems it solves and how?
>> * Who benefits and how?
>> * The incentive that authors will have to actually use it.
>> * How it could be implemented.
>> * The incentive that UA vendors have to implement it.

With the headers/scope debate in mind, I have a little bit difficulty in exactly understanding what counts as UA vendor incentives, though. Headers has use cases, solves some problems, benefits some, belongs to the AT «design palette», is probably more simple to implement in UAs (and thus [?] has gotten better supported than scope). So what can UA vendors as UA vendors have against headers? After all, you said that <FONT> did not hurt? So how does headers hurt?

Just to try to apply those principles and some of the arguments heard, on a totally randomly chosen problem. Such «principles» can proably help us in the review.
leif halvard silli

Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 23:41:46 UTC