Re: XHTML Basic 1.1 and setting input field to numeric mode

 > We /are/ developers

sure. You are. I am not denying you are developers. But are you 
developers who understand other developers and, above all, the variation 
in background, preparation, actual needs that characterize developers' 
lives and work?

are you building standards that will help people do their jobs, dirty 
jobs, underpaid jobs, way-too-little-time-to-do-properly-jobs, 
need-to-interface-to-a-legacy system-jobs, 
need-to-deal-with-crazy-requirements jobs?

 From Tina's and Shane's response, I am getting the feeling that you 
guys believe that you have a mission to fix the world according to some 
utopian view of what the world should be. Well, wake up. People need 
tools to do well in their job, not tools that try to force them to buy 
someone else's view of what their tools should be.

Luca

Tina Holmboe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 04:28:15PM +0200, Luca Passani wrote:
>
>   
>> migrating existing web apps. So, what's the point in having this petty  
>> feature creep in late versions of a completely different standard? 
>>     
>
>   It's not "feature creep". The XHTML working group is tasked with
>   maintaining the 1.* series of markup languages as well as developing
>   XHTML 2 - and there is consensus for, at some point, removing 
>   the STYLE attribute because it /is/ mixing presentation and
>   content.
>
>   And that's why it is being deprecated, as Shane pointed out, to 'warn'
>   developers of what is to come.
>
>
>   
>> If you ask me, someone here isn't understanding developers.
>>     
>
>   We /are/ developers - but we have a different set of responsibilities,
>   and among them is to, in a controlled and regulated manner, remove cruft
>   from the language(s).
>
>   Personally I think I do know myself :), but using STYLE has never been
>   a good way of maintaining quality code with good separation between layout
>   and content. The problem with merging differently-styled content is
>   largely due to this, but it is also a different topic.
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 15:06:40 UTC