W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2009

Re: Why Design Principles?

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:00:26 +0200
Message-ID: <4A25AF0A.3020809@malform.no>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak On 09-06-02 23.54:
> On Jun 1, 2009, at 8:11 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

>> 1. == Where did the Design Principles document come from? ==
>> Many of the core ideas in the Design Principles date back to the 2004 
>> W3C Workshop on Web Applications and Compound Documents[2] and the 
>> schism that arose there. The W3C decided that the future of the Web 
>> was a new Webbased on XML + XHTML + SMIL + SVG + XForms + CDF. Some 
>> dissenters, chiefly but not exclusively browser vendors, felt that the 
>> right path forward was incremental evolution on top of HTML + CSS + JS 
>> + DOM. This was based on concerns over continuity, compatibility and 
>> so forth. Some of the dissenters formed the WHATWG to carry on its 
>> vision.
>> While HTML5 (under the name "Web Apps 1.0" and "Web Forms 2.0") was 
>> under development in the WHATWG, the principles guiding its design 
>> were not explicitly called out or referred to. The main participants 
>> tended to share values, and the unofficial nature of the organization 
>> tended to attract those who were mostly like-minded.
>> In 2007, the W3C decided to return to work on HTML. The HTML Working 
>> Group was formed. In the early days, there was much bickering over 
>> basics. Clearly there was a lack of common vision and shared 
>> understanding between groups. Since WHATWG brought a fairly advanced 
>> proposal to the table, some of us who'd followed WHATWG goings-on more 
>> closely felt that it would be good to explicitly write down what we 
>> thought were the guiding principles, the better to communicate in 
>> these early discussions. The first version of the document was started 
>> on the Wiki by me, but had contributions from many others.
>> In early 2007, I suggested that the Design Principles be adopted by 
>> the group, and noted that some others thought they should be published 
>> as a W3C Note.[3] This resulted in two surveys, one to assess the 
>> level of agreement[5] and one on publishing as a Working Draft[4]. 
>> These surveys found support for publishing and also widespread (though 
>> not universal) support for the individual principles.
>> This is part of the reason the front matter is worded as it is. There 
>> was > 90% agreement on the substance of almost every principle, so it 
>> seemed like a fairly strong statement of agreement was appropriate.  [...]

> Ian and Anne both suggested that I should add most of this justification 
> to the Design Principles document itself. I will likely replace the 
> current abstract and introduction with something based on this email. I 
> suggest that those with an interest in the Design Principles should 
> voice their objections to this plan.

I object.

If you want to document how onesided and rooted in the WHATwg 
reality - aka "invented there" - the principles you have been 
authoring are, then please go on.

I would suggest to have _less_ introduction than in the 2007 
version. As little as possible.
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 23:01:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:48 UTC