- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:12:08 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson On 09-06-01 21.15: > On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: >> Ian Hickson wrote: >>> On Sun, 31 May 2009, Laura Carlson wrote: >>>> Principles that use wishy-washy rhetoric are not >>>> principles at all. They are judgment calls, completely >>>> subjective to the personal opinion of the person invoking >>>> the principle or authoring the spec. >>> Welcome to language design. >> Ian, in an attempt to make the conversation more productive: >> I take your answer as basic agreement with Laura that the >> current Design Principles document does not meet the goals >> stated in the Introduction of that document, as the goals it >> sets for itself are basically unattainable. >> >> Is this what you wish to convey? If not, can you clarify >> what you do mean? [...] > I think that it is ridiculous to think that language design can > ever be based on strict objective rules, "Clear language" and "strict objective rules" are not synonyms. > and I do not think that the design guidelines "guidelines" or "principles"? > claim that this is what is attempted (indeed quite the > opposite). In fact, that's what the term "design principles" > means. You are mixing "clear" and "strict" here as well. Clear and simple principles are inclusive. Or as Maciej put it[1]: >> *sheesh* >> >> I am really tired of people using "argument from authority" >> as an excuse for being clueless. > > It's not an excuse for being clueless. It's point out that you > can't just say "that's the way it is because I have 50 billion > years of experience building intergalatic flux capacitor > widgets". [ AKA your "welcome to language design" ] > As a recognized authority you may find this tiresome, but in a > standards body we have to use logically valid reasoning. No > kings or presidents, etc etc. Such a vision leaves no room for convoluted principles. To allow the principles to be stated more simply, clearly and understandable, one could eventually have had a separate section with the "if-s" and "but-s" and "but if-s" - basically some principles for how to use the principles/guidelines. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0571.html -- leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 21:12:48 UTC