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

Peter Sylvester peter.sylvester at edelweb.fr
Thu Jul 12 09:25:14 PDT 2012


On 07/12/2012 06:00 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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.
without a definition of waht is a tag, the answer may be trivial. Just 
one+ all kinds of attributes.
With an open list of values for a class attribute we are back where we 
started then.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
  <nav>  vs  <div class="nav">   ?  Fight against divity whenever you 
can :-)
>
>> 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.
I assume that there must be a joke in "painfully obvious" as in "have fun".

have fun



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list