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
>>>>> 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
>> 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".
More information about the rfc-interest