[html4all.org] [Fwd: [wbs] response to 'review of HTML Design Principles']

Wed Aug 22 10:21:10 PDT 2007

I guess I just ruled myself out as a potential editor
when I submitted the following.  It is, however, an
accurate indication of my feelings concerning the
Principles as currently formulated.

** Phil.
--------
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'review of HTML
Design Principles' (HTML Working Group) for Philip TAYLOR.

---------------------------------
principle "Support Existing Content"
----
Do you support the "Support Existing Content" principle?

  * ( ) Strongly Agree
  * ( ) Agree
  * ( ) Neutral
  * ( ) Disagree
  * (x) Strongly Disagree

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):
"Cross-browser content on the public Web should be given the most weight."
Strongly disagree.  "/Valid/ cross-browser ..." should be given the most
weight, and invalid content ignored.  For the same reason, I strongly
disagree that "We need to define processing requirements that remain
compatible with the expected handling of such content."

---------------------------------
principle "Degrade Gracefully"
----
Do you support the "Degrade Gracefully" principle?

  * ( ) Strongly Agree
  * ( ) Agree
  * ( ) Neutral
  * (x) Disagree
  * ( ) Strongly Disagree

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):
"<canvas> fallback </canvas>. Older user agents will show "fallback" while
user agents supporting canvas will show the element."  Design principles
should not cite proposed elements, since by so doing they may later be
interpreted as supporting that proposal.  Examples in the Principles
should use either existing (HTML 4.01) elements/attributes, or nonce
elements/attributes that do not (and are not likely to) form a part of the
draft specification.

---------------------------------
principle "Do not Reinvent The Wheel"
----
Do you support the "Do not Reinvent The Wheel" principle?

  * ( ) Strongly Agree
  * ( ) Agree
  * (x) Neutral
  * ( ) Disagree
  * ( ) Strongly Disagree

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):
I would prefer "do not re-invent the wheel unnecessarily"

---------------------------------
principle "Pave the Cowpaths"
----
Do you support the "Pave the Cowpaths" principle?

  * ( ) Strongly Agree
  * ( ) Agree
  * ( ) Neutral
  * ( ) Disagree
  * (x) Strongly Disagree

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):
The example cited ("Authors already use the <br/> syntax as opposed to
<br> in HTML and there is no harm done by allowing that to be used.") has
totally different meanings in HTML and in XHTML : the question totally
overlooks this, and pretends that there is "no harm" in allowing markup
that would, were browsers to properly follow the HTML specification, cause
an effect entirely different to that which the author expects.

---------------------------------
principle "Evolution Not Revolution"
----
Do you support the "Evolution Not Revolution" principle?

  * ( ) Strongly Agree
  * ( ) Agree
  * ( ) Neutral
  * (x) Disagree
  * ( ) Strongly Disagree

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):
I support the words, but not the sub-text.  By "Evolution", we should be
starting from HTML 4.01 Strict (and from its "Design Principles", which
are superbly stated); instead we are starting from what the WHAT WG argue
was a "blank sheet", yet which is in practice a bastardisation of HTML
combined with a number of hobby horses.

---------------------------------
principle "Solve Real Problems"
----
Do you support the "Solve Real Problems" principle?

  * ( ) Strongly Agree
  * ( ) Agree
  * (x) Neutral
  * ( ) Disagree
  * ( ) Strongly Disagree

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):
Solving real problems is all very well, but it can only ever be a starting
point.  We need to think more freely, more "out of the box" as some might
put it, if our efforts are to achieve something truly worthwhile.

---------------------------------
principle "Priority of Constituencies"
----
Do you support the "Priority of Constituencies" principle?

  * ( ) Strongly Agree
  * ( ) Agree
  * ( ) Neutral
  * ( ) Disagree
  * (x) Strongly Disagree

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):
Strongly disagree.  If we put enough effort into theoretical purity, all
the other aspects will automatically follow; as it is, all we are likely
to do is to rubber-stamp existing (bad) practice.

---------------------------------
principle "Media Independence"
----
Do you support the "Media Independence" principle?

  * (x) Strongly Agree
  * ( ) Agree
  * ( ) Neutral
  * ( ) Disagree
  * ( ) Strongly Disagree

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):
By definition, HTML is a /Markup Language/ : markup languages must be
medium-neutral, since they denote semantics rather than presentation.

---------------------------------
principle "Universal Access"
----
Do you support the "Universal Access" principle?

  * ( ) Strongly Agree
  * ( ) Agree
  * ( ) Neutral
  * (x) Disagree
  * ( ) Strongly Disagree

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):
Far too weak : re-cast as "but alternate mechanisms should be provided
when possible" as "but alternate mechanisms must always be provided "

---------------------------------
principle "Support World Languages"
----
Do you support the "Support World Languages" principle?

  * ( ) Strongly Agree
  * ( ) Agree
  * ( ) Neutral
  * (x) Disagree
  * ( ) Strongly Disagree

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):
The second sentence : "Italics is useful because it applies to many
bicameral scripts, even though some scripts have no such concept."
has no place in the design principles at all.  Italics are
purely presentational, and should have no 1 : 1 correspondence with any
HTML element or attribute.  With the underlying concept of the principle,
however, I strongly agree.

---------------------------------
principle "Secure By Design"
----
Do you support the "Secure By Design" principle?

  * ( ) Strongly Agree
  * ( ) Agree
  * ( ) Neutral
  * (x) Disagree
  * ( ) Strongly Disagree

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):
Again, the Principle cites a proposed feature : "Cross-document messaging
is designed to allow this without violating security constraints".  This
should be deleted, and an abstract or artificial example substituted.

---------------------------------
principle "Separation of Concerns"
----
Do you support the "Separation of Concerns" principle?

  * ( ) Strongly Agree
  * ( ) Agree
  * ( ) Neutral
  * ( ) Disagree
  * (x) Strongly Disagree

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):
Far too weak.  The entire principle needs to be re-cast to emphasise that
the r\^ole of HTML is /Semantic Markup/, pure and simple.  And a purported
justification for the retention of <b> and <i> in a Principle supposedly
supporting the Separation of Concerns is not only oxymoronic but
ludicrous.

---------------------------------
principle "Well-Defined Behavior"
----
Do you support the "Well-Defined Behavior" principle?

  * ( ) Strongly Agree
  * ( ) Agree
  * ( ) Neutral
  * ( ) Disagree
  * (x) Strongly Disagree

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):
HTML 5 should be a specification for a markup language, not a
specification of browser behaviour.  The present draft specification tries
to be all things to all men : it would be far better as a series of
distinct documents, of which by far the most important would be the
specification of the HTML 5 language, but of which "Preferred browser
behaviour" might also well be one.

---------------------------------
principle "Avoid Needless Complexity"
----
Do you support the "Avoid Needless Complexity" principle?

  * ( ) Strongly Agree
  * ( ) Agree
  * ( ) Neutral
  * (x) Disagree
  * ( ) Strongly Disagree

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):
Again, I strongly agree with the Principle, but not with the supporting
text.  "But this should not be used as an excuse to avoid satisfying the
other principles" is completely redundant, since the Principle speaks of
"Needless" complexity, not complexity for its own sake.

---------------------------------
principle "Handle Errors"
----
Do you support the "Handle Errors" principle?

  * ( ) Strongly Agree
  * ( ) Agree
  * (x) Neutral
  * ( ) Disagree
  * ( ) Strongly Disagree

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):
Ambivalent.  I can see some benefit, but by concealing author's errors
from end users we are removing 99% of the possible pressure on authors to
avoid (or correct) these errors in the first place.  On balance, I
disagree.

---------------------------------
Do you support publication?
----
Whether you support adopting any one principle or not, do you support
publishing the draft for community review?

  * ( ) Abstain
  * ( ) no; let's not work on this
  * (x) Only after critical issues are addressed
  * ( ) yes

Rationale:
Define "community". This draft needs real work by the HTML WG if it is to
represent /our/ views rather than the view of the WHAT WG.

---------------------------------
Are you OK to delegate some edits?
----
The document will have to go through at least some edits required
by W3C publication process. In particular, the "Status of this document"
section is written by the Staff Contact (with input from the editor,
chair, and WG).

It often helps to allow the editor to incorporate edits at their
discretion, either just small things or in general.

It's often useful to get a the chair or some other WG member to check any
changes just before publication. If there's some WG member you're happy to
delegate to, please nominate them in a comment.

Maciej Stachowiak and Anne van Kesteren have offered
to work on this document, and they seem like reasonable editor
candidates.

  * [ ] any edits the editors choose
  * [ ] any small/editorial changes the editors choose
  * [ ] any small/editoral changes, where "small" is judged by the chair

Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments):
Maciej and Anne, like Lachlan and Ian, are all long-term members of the
WHAT WG, and whilst they do not necessarily support each other 100%, they
do do so at least 98,5% of the time.  It is /essential/ that this document
have at least as many editors who are not aligned with the WHAT WG as those
who are.  I understand that Laura Carlson, who has contributed enormous
sense in these debates, is either willing to stand as an editor herself, or
is compiling a list of those willing to serve.  I nominate Laura, or
Laura's nominees, to serve in this capacity.

These answers were last modified on 22 August 2007 at 17:06:50 U.T.C.
by Philip TAYLOR

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/dprv/ until 2007-08-23.

  Regards,

  The Automatic WBS Mailer