http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-html-design-principles-20071126
"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.
