"This document describes the set of guiding principles used by the HTML Working Group for the development of HTML5, expected to define the fifth major revision of the core language of the World Wide Web."
...
2.3. Do not Reinvent the Wheel If there is already a widely used and implemented technology covering particular use cases, consider specifying that technology in preference to inventing something new for the same purpose. Sometimes, though, new use cases may call for a new approach instead of more extensions on an old approach. Sample: contenteditable="" was already used and implemented by user agents. No need to invent a new feature.
...
3.2. Priority of Constituencies In case of conflict, consider users over authors over implementors over specifiers over theoretical purity. In other words costs or difficulties to the user should be given more weight than costs to authors; which in turn should be given more weight than costs to implementors; which should be given more weight than costs to authors of the spec itself, which should be given more weight than those proposing changes for theoretical reasons alone. Of course, it is preferred to make things better for multiple constituencies at once.
One thing to say: Wow! I did not hear such reasonable and adequate talk from W3C since 1997/8 at least. Either it is a local revolution in the organization or Sir Tim finally made shut up the most deviant hardcore "theoretics" so trying to save the rest of W3C influence. HTML5 is clearly from WHATWG http://www.whatwg.org being former opposition to W3C but recently http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007JanMar/0002.html
So maybe W3C is not lost completely yet. After having predictably lost the cold war of 2000-2006 they of course cannot count on the original dream of World Wide Web Standard Dictatorship. But by keeping being professional and adequate as recently demonstrated they may still count to the original position of 1995/00 as a reputable body monitoring the Web processes and - with agreement with producers and developers - issuing RFC-like recommendations for established practice: so anyone in the future could make both backward compatible and up-to-date solutions, both in software and in Web development.
> "This document describes the set of guiding principles used by the > HTML Working Group for the development of HTML5, expected to define > the fifth major revision of the core language of the World Wide Web."
Yeah, well... Microsoft, for instance, has in the past published various design standards for software development. And never heeded any of them.
-- jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com (Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
>> "This document describes the set of guiding principles used by the >> HTML Working Group for the development of HTML5, expected to define >> the fifth major revision of the core language of the World Wide Web."
> Yeah, well... > Microsoft, for instance, has in the past published various design > standards for software development. And never heeded any of them.
PointedEars -- Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript. -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300d...@news.demon.co.uk>
> > "This document describes the set of guiding principles used by the > > HTML Working Group for the development of HTML5, expected to define > > the fifth major revision of the core language of the World Wide Web."
> Yeah, well... > Microsoft, for instance, has in the past published various design > standards for software development. And never heeded any of them.
Yes, but it is not yet another one MSDN Guru with his "How to make your first pages looking nice in Internet Explorer". That is W3C. To have a taste of what is that for some people in there - whatever I would think of their work results - look at
David Dailey (No, disagree) "<...> It is not so much the individual principles (which I chose not to vote on for various reasons in October) but the whole package that troubles me. Collectively, they seem rather like the Galactic Federation posting a note on a nearby planet that your own planet is soon to be destroyed. But then, I can be a pessimist at times."
