- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 13:13:30 -0700
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
I should speak slower on phone conferences. Here are some corrections and additions (at least of what I think I said.) Re-reading the log, I think I'm changing my mind about where to go with the DP document. ============================================== >> LM: I have some comments... >> ... The question is not so much whether the DP document is >> self-reasonable, but whether or not it has in fact been used >> appropriately in the document LM: The question is not so much whether the DP document is itself ... reasonable, but whether it in fact matches the design principles ... actually used to produce the document. >> ... The DP document is ambigious LM: To give an example, take section 2.4. >> ... What the document says about [Paving the Cowpaths] is that we >> should consider widespread authoring practice rather than inventing >> something totally new. >> <DanC> contra-positive >> >> LM: It has been used in the contra-positive >> >> <masinter> if A then B turns into if not A than not B >> >> LM: e.g. <head profile> LM: "If something is not widespread authoring practice it should be ... removed" is a principle that has been applied. >> [a side discussion between masinter and dsinger is unfortuantely not >> minuted] DSinger argued for why doing so was a good principle. LM: whether it was a good principle was another discussion, ... we're talking about whether to publish the DP document as defining ... the design principles actually used. [this was a 'discussion' and not 'side'] >> LM: which things are considered widespread and which things aren't; >> it seems like this has been applied inconsistently >> <dsinger> i.e. if something has been previously specified, but >> failed to make a cowpath, then it should be de-considered >> >> AvK: what makes you say that? >> >> <dsinger> the above is NOT a stated principle but it seems to be >> used as such >> LM: In reference to inconsistent application of "widespread", it's seems that some widespread practices weren't considered, while some practices that were not common were given significant consideration. >> LM: I could come up with some examples, but there were some >> discussions that I would have to do some research on LM: Finally, the word 'consider' indicates that the existing ... practice should be debated. But the [Paving the Cowpath] DP ... has been used as an argument not just for consideration, but also ... as a strong argument justifying features. ... This is just >> ... to give you an indication of what I think the issues are >> ... that wording of the DP was changed during the discussion of the >> DP itself ... to change the DP document to use "consider", so the word ... "consider" is significant. >> >> <Laura> The principles are open to various interpretations. In >> practical use, no real consensus exists on what they mean. >> >> LM: existing practice was used as a benchmark against wich >> contervailing proposals didn't have any use against existing >> practice s/wich/which/ >> <Laura> Group members have fundamental differences with them. >> >> LM: my question is that the document itself may be reasonable but >> the practice in which the document has been used may not which is >> the nature of my concern LM: The question is, while the document itself may be reasonable, it may not match the design principles actually used. That is the nature of my concern. >> AvK: that sounded really vague and incoherent and my scribing might >> have reflected that for which I apoligize >> >> <Laura> There has been no meeting of the minds on the content of the >> design principles. >> >> LM: my question was whether publishing the document today would >> actually describe the practices we use today >> >> <dsinger> why does the document need to be published or gain any >> more status? it's a guideline to help move the group along, isn't >> it, and hence internal? >> >> AvK: to answer dsinger's question it has been published at some >> point so it's not internal >> >> SR: it was on the agenda because Maciej wrote an email to address an >> issue and LC had concerns >> ... I'm happy to move it forward or leave it as is >> >> <Laura> If we are not going to have another poll to find out if we >> have real consensus of the content of the principles document, I >> propose that the entire document be obsoleted. >> >> LM: I'm ok with leaving it as historical anecdote s/anecdote/artifact/ >> DS: I think it helps as a general document documenting the way we >> think >> ... I don't think it's useful as rulebook >> >> AvK: I agree with DS and would be happy to leave it as is >> >> DS: I'll ping Maciej >> >> SR: great >> >> <Laura> If it is decided to publish the document as a note anyway, I >> propose that at a minimum, a disclaimer is attached saying: >> >> DougS: I think it is worth noting that when we first discussed these >> TimBL chimed on to say they are not useful as rule but more as >> describing how people arrived somewhere. they are mostly used as a >> rhetorical tool, in practice >> >> <Laura> "Publication of this document does not constitute >> endorsement. There is no working group consensus on the content of >> these principles but it was decided that further effort to refine >> them and gain consensus was not a productive use of time." >> >> [For the minutes: DS might refer to both DaveS and DougS before I >> started using DougS. Sorry!] >> >> <masinter> i would question whether they reflect actually how >> decisions were made >> > >
Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 20:14:10 UTC