[rfc-i] draft-hildebrand-html-rfc

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu Jul 12 09:00:06 PDT 2012


On 2012-07-12 17:48, Joe Touch wrote:
>
> On Jul 12, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> On 2012-07-12 17:32, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 12, 2012, at 8:17 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2012-07-12 17:06, Joe Touch wrote:
>>>>>   However, whatever tags are *required* (and we still don't have that list), they need to be the MINIMAL such list.
>>>>
>>>> And where is *that* requirement coming from?
>>>
>>> It's a direct consequence of the primary requirement that the solution be archival.
>>
>> I don't see how that follows from the archival requirement.
>
> Archival means useful into the future.
>
> Useful means it can be supported and translated if needed.
>
> Keeping the set of such features minimal helps reduce the effort needed for that support, and increases the probability that such support will be correct.

So it's not a hard requirement.

I agree that simplicity can make things easier, except when you make 
things too simple. For instance, you can replace most of the "semantic" 
elements in HTML by <div>s and <span>s, but for some strange reason, 
people don't.

> I would consider anyone for whom this isn't painfully obvious to be unqualified to develop a solution, frankly.

Helpful, I'll keep that in mind.




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list