RE: taking HDP seriously (was Re: HTML Design Principles to WD?)

+1.  Getting the principles out to see the feedback loop from them to
the spec is the part of the process, not the end.  Under and
over-analysis both need to be avoided.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> [] On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 4:19 PM
> To: Philip Taylor (Webmaster)
> Cc: Gregory J. Rosmaita; Anne van Kesteren; Steven Faulkner; HTML WG
> Subject: Re: taking HDP seriously (was Re: HTML Design 
> Principles to WD?)
> On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 18:01 +0000, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote:
> [...]
> > I wonder whether we might usefully use the W3C Issue Tracker as 
> > recently demonstrated by Julian Reschke to discuss, debate and 
> > /resolve/ each Design Principle in turn, with a view to 
> finally being 
> > being able to publish this key document and then Move On.
> We certainly didn't put all this effort into the design 
> principles document only to forget it and never look back; we 
> invested in it so that we can cite it in discussions going 
> forward. And if we find that our design principles change 
> substantially, we should let the community know by updating 
> the document.
> I don't think cost-effective to formally resolve each 
> principle at this stage. I think general support for 
> something close to what I just proposed*, formally, that we 
> publish, is adequately documented in the proceedings of this 
> group; especially in:
>  Results of Questionnaire review of HTML Design Principles  
> In the issue tracker, I'm more interested in (a) 
> black-and-white design issues that we can back with test 
> cases, and (b) requirements issues that are perhaps not 
> testable but fairly objective nonetheless.
> See also
> *
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 05:15:56 UTC