On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:18:48AM -0800, Tantek Çelik wrote:

> Your analysis of (a) and (b) suffers from the same fundamental flaw.  You
> are attempting to make an absolute assessment of how high a barrier an
> author will attempt to overcome, when that is essentially irrelevant, and
> incalculable.
> What *is* relevant is that given comparable in-demand features, solutions
> with relatively lower barriers will outperform solutions with higher
> barriers nearly everytime.
> Namespaces in a syntax are such a barrier.
> Solutions not requiring them will outperform solutions that do.
> More specifically, requiring a higher barrier in a technology, that's not
> necessary for the typical (90%) case, and only serves to address edge cases,
> needlessly cripples the adoptability of that technology.
> Technologists and academics and researchers love to design for the edge
> cases, because typically there are more "interesting" problems to solve on
> the edges.  Unfortunately by using edge cases as design centers, they often
> neglect, and destroy, the usability of typical cases.

Whow -- that's the first time I agree with you :-P

(I just can't get rid of the impression that your employer often draws
wrong conclusions from this very important observation...)

Anyways, it seems we agree that W3C folks tend to create solutions that
evidently go into the wrong direction :-(


Received on Saturday, 3 April 2004 10:01:10 UTC