- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:33:58 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Cc: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>, www-html@w3.org
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Tina Holmboe wrote: > On 17 Nov, Ian Hickson wrote: > > >> Section 3.6 would be much simpler if it didn't have to worry about > >> optional and implied tags. > >> > >> Section 3.8 would almost disappear. > > > > Why does the size of the spec matter? Surely the benefit to authors > > far, far outweigh the benefits to the spec community? > > A monolithic specification is less likely to be read. A shorter, to the > point, specification benefit content and site creators alike. That's why we're writing an authoring guide. I think a language that is easy to use plus a friendly authoring guide and a big spec to make it all happen is better than a language that is technically simpler but harder to use with a simpler spec. (I'm also not convinced it would make the spec much simpler.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 23:34:45 UTC