- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:34:28 +0100
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "John Foliot" <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:16:46 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Jonas Sicking wrote: >> ... >> In short, the same benefit you get from removing any redundant >> feature. The question should never be "why not have this feature in >> the spec", the question should always be "why should we have this >> feature in the spec". >> ... > > Somebody once said: "the optimal number of optional features in a spec > is zero", and "you're done with a spec when there's nothing left to > remove" (maybe it way Yaron G.). > > Of course that doesn't always work well, but there's a lot of truth in > it. But: if we're really concerned with the size of the spec than there > are far bigger parts that could be removed. I think the concern is more about the size of the platform. I.e. splitting a feature into its own specification does not really qualify. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 08:35:21 UTC