- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:31:21 -0600
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: > Do we > really have to illustrate use cases in action, before we can develop the > technology which allows them to be demonstrated exists? Though I admit it seems ass-backwards until you "get it", the answer is yes, you do have to provide such use-cases. More precisely, you have to show that such an addition/change to the language would be of significant help to authors, where "significant" is somewhat vague and depends on the difficulty of the change. It just so happens that one of the easiest ways to show that something would help authors is showing that authors are currently hacking around the problem, and that their efforts could be made significantly easier with language support. That establishes that there *is* a problem in need of solving, so that we don't spend time on insignificant problems when there are more important things to do. It also shows what authors think the solution is shaped like, so we don't end up implementing something that doesn't actually help authors in their real use-cases. http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_adding_new_features_to_the_spec.3F ~TJ
Received on Saturday, 28 February 2009 17:31:21 UTC