- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:15:11 -0600
- To: Karl Groves <karl.groves@ssbbartgroup.com>
- CC: HTML Issue Tracking WG <public-html@w3.org>
Karl Groves wrote: > I agree with you that "An element that is never used in the correct way has > no value to the user", but I disagree that this should necessitate modifying > the spec to merely do away with items which have real value. I don't think I saw anyone claiming that the point of usage surveys is necessarily to find things to remove. The point of usage surveys is to see what authors are doing and how they are doing it, as well as what aspects of HTML they are using (and how) and not using. Knowing what the authors are trying to accomplish makes it easier to _add_ features that let them achieve their goals while at the same time improving accessibility and the user exprience (e.g. replacing inaccessible script with more accessible declarative markup that is enough simpler that authors will use it). Knowing what things are being used (and how much) that are technically violations of the existing HTML4 specification is useful in trying to determine whether they should remain violations. Now if something that's been specified for years is indeed not being used, then it's worth removing it. But "not being used" needs to be a pretty high bar, given the number of web pages out there. For example, something used by 1% of websites is most certainly being used. > Improper markup > is the developer's fault, not HTML's. At some point, the developer needs to > take responsibility for his own shortcomings. While true, if HTML doesn't allow the author to achieve his goals with proper markup, _that_ is squarely a shortcoming of HTML. Note that the goals might include simplicity of markup. -Boris
Received on Friday, 15 February 2008 16:14:52 UTC