- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 05:41:59 -0700
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On May 25, 2009, at 5:29 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > Anne van Kesteren On 09-05-24 22.37: >> On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:22:14 +0200, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com >> > wrote: >>> Are you asking me to critique the HTML document against >>> these design prinicples, the design principles themselves, >>> or something else? >> >> You keep alluding to problems with the design principles, but you >> never actually state them. Making the issues more explicit is what >> I am asking for. > > Are you alluding to problems with understanding Larry? > > No one will subscribe to reasonable principles if, in reality, they > are (honestly, of course) interpreted to legitimize things that one > are opposed to, disagree with and, in fact, not found in the > principles. I think Larry (and Dan also, if I understood the IRC log > of the telcon correctly) has pointed to a problem with the / > interpretation/ of the principles. "Pave the cow paths" has been > interpreted to say "do not pave anything that perhaps isn't a cow > path". Can you cite an example of anyone making that kind of argument and citing the "Pave the Cowpaths" principle? The text says: "When a practice is already widespread among authors, consider adopting it rather than forbidding it or inventing something new." I can't see how it would ever justify *not* supporting something. In fact, the only time I recall hearing this kind of argument is from those who think the principle is a bad one, and who claimed others were incorrectly applying it in this way. It seems uncontroversial as actually stated. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 12:42:40 UTC