+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.
Cheers,
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] 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
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/dprv/results
>
> 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 http://esw.w3.org/topic/RequirementsDocument
>
>
> * http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/wdhdp/
>
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
>
>
>