Lachlan Hunt schrieb: > Niels Fröhling wrote: >>> Anyway, does anyone else have any thoughts or speculation about this? >> >> I much agree with this: >> >> http://blog.fawny.org/2006/10/28/tbl-html/ > > I don't agree with everything he said. You might like to see my > response to that. > http://lachy.id.au/log/2006/10/fixing-html
I want do present a modified cite of Molly here: Specification-bugs are the result of human errors and lack of completeness and logic during the creation-process. It's a fundamental human shortcoming, for which a lasting cure is yet to be found. Any attempts to correct buggy specifications without recreating it from scratch, will inevitably lead to even more and more complex bugs finding their way into the specification, because of the same human shortcomings. All specification that rely on other specifications — including RFCs (of course), will also rely on its bugs. Thus we get a cascade of bugs from all involved bits of specifications, which makes even the thought of finding bug-free specifications completely absurd. http://www.satzansatz.de/cssd/onhavinglayout.html#absurd So how I interpreted (for sure modified and filtered by my own point of view) Joe's anger, was about the lack of fundamental investigations. I'm on the WhatWG-ml, and I do have to agree to a degree. *Programmers* are inventing tag over tag that from the - let's call it - programmers lazyness point of view (you may replace programmer by dysigner). What's forgotten (for example) is a analysis of HTML under a visual creation (HTML-drawers) environment, because for god sake, the worst HTML comes out of 'Dreamweaver' ..., is HTML and all of the complexity of page flow, it's inflexibilities, actually possible to explain to a person that only knows Word/OpenOffice, or at least is it possible to _present_ a consistent behaviour that is not overly complex (even if the underlying logic may be)? And don't be arrogant about for whom should HTML be and what somebody has to learn before. HTML is for the masses, and as long as the definition of HTML serves tech- orgasmorgies, and not the masses (who one called allways wrong -> Bukowski), as long as there is no movement in the investigation of HTML/CSS/JS _psychology_ (yes I now, what a bullshit ... [you] allready successfully banned GUI spec. and recomendations based on psychological investigations ... be proud) there will be no consistent and super-purposefull HTML-spec. And that is the big weakness of goups/consortiums etc. that are unstructured (mailing-list) or for money. I miss the rest of the society in the process, if they don't participate, ask yourself we, and try to involve them, then again, then harder. Ciao Niels ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
