- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 07:20:44 -0500
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Larry wrote: > Speaking as someone with a long-term investment in web standards: > > Design Principles: > > My main objection to the Design Principles (and the document that has > resulted from them) is the fundamental assumption -- made from the > beginning, alas -- to confound the "describe, as best we can, what HTML in > the wild is today, and how to process it in a way that is bug-compatible > with IE" with the other goal of "define new features that increase the > expressivity and interactivity of the web", in a way that fundamentally ties > any future advances to the mess of the past. I think it's a step backward, > unnecessary, and leads to a much worse, broken, inconsistent, and unhappy > world for users, authors, and future browser-makers. It was a bad technical > decision, made for short-term political (browser-wars) reasons. That would be the "Pave The Cowpaths" Design Principle. This principle has been debated at length. See the May 2007 thread starting at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/thread.html#msg940 Working group members disagreed as well as strongly disagreed with that principle in the August 2007 survey. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/dprv/results#xptcp > I agree with Sam's contrasting the normal role of "editor" from Ian's role > as "author" (which is more appropriate than "dictator" since Ian controls > the document but not people directly). Actually the 2007 survey was for "editors" not for an "author". http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/results#xhtml5eds That survey also had a question to adopt HTML5 as our specification text to review. Not to accept. It specifically said: > A "yes" response indicates a willingness to use these documents as > the basis for discussion with the editors and the WG going forward. > It does not constitute endorsement of the entire feature set > specified in these documents, nor does it indicate that you feel that > the documents in their present state should become a W3C > Recommendation or even a W3C Working Draft. http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/results#xspectxt Related references: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Sep/0009.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/0963.html Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 12:30:15 UTC