Anne,
On reflection, I believe I agree. It would have been better for me to
have raised my objection offlist to Maciej, as you so politely did
with me in this case.
I suspect that Maciej (hi Maciej) remembers my early concerns over
the design principles -- I was merely resurfacing to point out that
my concern still exists about the scope of their application. The
grin on my face as I did so, may not have been apparent. Overall, I
am finding myself agreeing with you and Maciej on issues, these days,
altogether more often than I am comfortable with :) Wish I had more
time to contribute "productively." Maybe next semester.
best regards,
David
At 10:39 AM 12/1/2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:25:45 +0100, Dailey, David P.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat 12/1/2007 9:48 AM Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Our Design Principles require compatibiity with existing content, so
we can't remove existing functionality.
It wasn't clear to me that our design principles "require" anything.
Quoting from http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/
1. These design principles are an attempt to capture consensus on design
approach. They are pragmatic rules of thumb that must be balanced
against each other, not absolutes.
and
2. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in
progress.
This stuff is also in the charter and it's pretty obvious by now what the
constraints are for evolving HTML. Is it really necessary to make such
e-mails? I think it would be better if you stated why you disagree with
the constraint rather than starting a "flamewar" on whether or not the
design principles require anything (I agree that they don't, they simply
illustrate our constraints, and therefore it comes down to the same thing).
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
