W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > January 2017

Re: Who would know? sorry for being off-topic

From: Doug Schepers <standards@schepers.cc>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:11:41 -0500
To: "Dailey, David P." <david.dailey@sru.edu>, "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <437422a4-5e5f-93ea-6f7b-ff2568050548@schepers.cc>
Hi, David–

I suspect you're thinking of the Priority of Constituencies [1]:

[[
In case of conflict, consider users over authors over implementors over 
specifiers over theoretical purity. In other words costs or difficulties 
to the user should be given more weight than costs to authors; which in 
turn should be given more weight than costs to implementors; which 
should be given more weight than costs to authors of the spec itself, 
which should be given more weight than those proposing changes for 
theoretical reasons alone. Of course, it is preferred to make things 
better for multiple constituencies at once.
]]

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies

Regards–
Doug

On 1/18/17 9:51 PM, Dailey, David P. wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> The other day I was trying to explain to some folks about how various
> cultures develop secret handshakes and the like, and was thinking of the
> W3C and its various discussion groups and all their curious norms and
> mores governing communication, quotations, citation of sources,
> providing of evidence, grounds for raising new topics (never did figure
> this one out), etc. and wondered if this was all codified somewhere.
>
>
> Once upon a time when W3C and WHATwuggers agreed to share a listserv or
> two and maybe an IRC channel, there were things called Aphorisms of
> Consent or Rules-a-Plenty or something, that were meant to be
> meta-constructs. I'm sure I could find those if I searched since they
> were codified and, at times, were wielded with heavy hands and
> unwavering clarity of purpose.
>
>
> But having oft run afoul of said rules (not being one of YOU after all),
> I thought them quaint enough in an anthropological sense to make note of
> them. Just now as I went a'searchin' I was only able to find this
> interesting 1998 document governing e-mail [1].
>
>
> Might someone have a recommendation for which of the ever-changing
> landscape of discussion groups I might ask for a normative document
> about the protocol of W3C conversations?
>
>
> Please and thank-you
>
> David
>
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-HTMLThreading-0105
>
> Conventions for HTML in Email
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-HTMLThreading-0105>
> www.w3.org
> Status of this document This document is a NOTE made available by the W3
> Consortium for discussion only. This indicates no endorsement of its
> content, nor that the ...
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2017 03:12:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:07 UTC