Re: Cleaning House

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Tina Holmboe wrote:
> On 17 Nov, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
> >> Section 3.6 would be much simpler if it didn't have to worry about 
> >> optional and implied tags.
> >> 
> >> Section 3.8 would almost disappear.
> > 
> > Why does the size of the spec matter? Surely the benefit to authors 
> > far, far outweigh the benefits to the spec community?
> 
> A monolithic specification is less likely to be read. A shorter, to the 
> point, specification benefit content and site creators alike.

That's why we're writing an authoring guide.

I think a language that is easy to use plus a friendly authoring guide and 
a big spec to make it all happen is better than a language that is 
technically simpler but harder to use with a simpler spec.

(I'm also not convinced it would make the spec much simpler.)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'