Le 12 déc. 2006 à 14:10, Ian Hickson a écrit :
There is no contradiction here as I assume you are implying. The
context
is extension mechanisms. It is important to have well-defined
extension
mechanisms, to allow for authors to experiment and address their needs
without having to affect all users of the technology.
completely agreed and you know why. :)
http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/
It is equally
important to ensure that such extension mechanisms are well-scoped
so that
future extensions to the language itself aren't constrained, as has
happened in certain areas (for example, when it comes to the
parsing of
certain elements). Extension mechanisms benefit from forethought,
but do
not require it. Experience gained from the creation of extension
mechanisms by subsets of the community can contribute towards the
development of the language as a whole.
Agreed again. I think we both agree on the general idea, but not with
the process.
Morality: if you are a community with needs, microformats, sw,
etc. do
whatever you want, it doesn't matter that much :) The Web is
already 97%
invalid. It will be more tag soup BUT at least once you have
reached a
critical mass, people will formalized in a specs your practices which
were once done.
I'm going to assume this is just a troll.
Sorry if it was taken as a troll. But it is the feeling I have since
I followed the discussion here for the last year or two. It seems
there is a sound resistance to progress on certain topics. I
completely agree that consensus is a long process. But I have
difficulties to see sometimes how you decide about some extension.
We can take RDFa/microformats and include patterns. There are things
which we can not do these days because the solution of microformats
is incomplete. It doesn't dismiss the microformats at all. It just
mean that some communities need more.
question: why do we create specs?
To ensure interoperability between products from different groups of
people, in a fashion that addresses the majority of the needs of those
groups. More specifically in the case of Web specifications, to ensure
that content written by one group of people will be understood to
mean the
same thing by all its readers, and will be processed in the same
way by
all software, even if the software was not written with that
content in
mind.
Agreed again. But I'm not sure we have always the same idea of what
is needed, which is also part of the process.
I think it would help to have a rationale behind each decision or at
least showing the different solution which have been proposed. A bit
like wikipedia when an article is put online, there is an equilibrium
showing the two points of view or more if any. I think that is
healthy in the sense because sharing ideas without wiping out others
make all of us richer more than having resistance which sounds like
you against the world (which might not be healthy for yourself as well.)
Again sorry for the mischaracterization, but really in the need to
understand how the things are processed.
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
