Re: ISSUE-30 (Longdesc) Change Proposal

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> In short, the same benefit you get from removing any redundant
>> feature. The question should never be "why not have this feature in
>> the spec", the question should always be "why should we have this
>> feature in the spec".
>> ...
>
> Somebody once said: "the optimal number of optional features in a spec is
> zero", and "you're done with a spec when there's nothing left to remove"
> (maybe it way Yaron G.).
>
> Of course that doesn't always work well, but there's a lot of truth in it.
> But: if we're really concerned with the size of the spec than there are far
> bigger parts that could be removed.

Agreed. But I don't think that changes anything. Unless the argument
is "since there's one unneccesary feature in the spec it's ok to add
more". If such an argument was made by anyone, that I would not agree
with.

I've successfully campaigned against features before (.tags() and
<dialog>), and I hope to find more to campaign against.

/ Jonas

Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 21:39:14 UTC