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,
> 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