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

Re: View Source

From: Rick <graham.rick@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:46:11 -0400
Message-ID: <18569e000903181046q124ee71at5fc1bd6042a71dcd@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-svg@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 4:09 AM, David Woolley
<forums@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:
> Rick wrote:
>> Try filing feature requests.  If someone implements it, and it turns
>> out to be as good a thing as it seems, other UA's will follow.
> Markets generally only act on wants, this issue is more about needs.
> The problem here is that the people who would most benefit from this sort of
> feature are the least likely to be aware that they have a problem in the
> first place.

That sounds like a strawman argument, what people?  The topic of this
thread basically boils down to this.  Is it within the realm of a
document specification to impose rules on a user agent beyond the
scope of the document definition.

That is very dangerous ground.  If you (and others) feel that UI's are
incomplete without the ability to provide a pretty print of the DOM,
then you should take it up with the Browsers, not attempt to expand
the scope of the document specification to include things outside of
its mandate.

Whether or not the tool is useful, and how educated the benefactors
are is of no consequence in the discussion.

I agree personally that the concept has merit, I disagree strongly
with this approach.

> --
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 17:46:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:43 UTC