- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:40:04 -0400
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 6/27/12 2:14 PM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote: > But the kind of arguments you bring here are exactly the kind of arguments we should have when implementation affects design -- what can and cannot be done with a particular design. It is much healthier and more useful than knowing that some code somewhere has a problem... Well, sure. Daniel's problem was just that he's not an expert on the exact details involved, so he simply didn't have the relevant information. And he said that in his post... I'm sorry if you perceived him as being handwavy on purpose here. I definitely agree that we should try to be specific about the structural problems with an approach, if there are any, as opposed to implementation difficulties in a particular implementation that don't have a structural underpinning. -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2012 18:40:33 UTC