[whatwg] Joe Clark's Criticisms of the WHATWG and HTML 5
jg307 at cam.ac.uk
Fri Mar 23 07:21:27 PDT 2007
Nicholas Shanks wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2007, at 02:27, Robert Brodrecht wrote:
>> Just because "most ... doesn't bother" doesn't mean it ought to be
>> So let's not ignore elements because "no one uses them."
>> Ignore them because they are useless.
> I was thinking more along the lines of:
> 1) We start with a set containing all potential authors, human and
> robotic, past present and future.
> 2) We remove from that set the people and programs who don't care about
> or are not willing to learn correct methods of authorship, these people
> should have no say.
> 3) We then take a poll of every possible string value for new elements,
> and sort the result as a priority list, amalgamating words that mean the
> same thing.
> 4) We decide how many elements HTML should have (i.e. how complicated it
> should be/how hard for new people to learn), and cut the list at this
> 5) We then use this as the new HTML.
> That way I'm sure there would be 100 million votes for <copyright> and
> perhaps 250,000 votes for <var>, <dfn>, <kbd> etc.
Whilst I agree with your conclusion (drop <var>, <dfn>, <kbd>), I disagree with
your methodology. All possible elements are not equal; some elements can be
processed by general-purpose UAs to beneficial effect, others cannot. When
designing the language we should be looking to include the first type of element
and not the second.
"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
-- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
More information about the whatwg