WHATWG: 140 Characters Discourages Intelligent Discourse

Posted by varun_ch on Wednesday March 30, 2022 @02:22AM
from the html.spec.whatwg.org dept.

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/input.html#attr-input-maxlength

( 5 comments | 5 points | on HN )

Re:WHATWG: 140 Characters Discourages Intelligent Discourse by slater on Wednesday March 30, 2022 @02:28AM (#30852066)

"please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize"

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:WHATWG: 140 Characters Discourages Intelligent Discourse by varun_ch on Wednesday March 30, 2022 @02:29AM (#30852070)

I didn't really know how to fit "The following extract shows how a messaging client's text entry could be arbitrarily restricted to a fixed number of characters, thus forcing any conversation through this medium to be terse and discouraging intelligent discourse." into a title.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:WHATWG: 140 Characters Discourages Intelligent Discourse by slater on Wednesday March 30, 2022 @02:33AM (#30852086)

To me, that sentence sounds more like someone with a chip on their shoulder, and oddly unprofessional for an organization like WhatWG.

(edit: n.b., not calling you out)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:WHATWG: 140 Characters Discourages Intelligent Discourse by kragen on Wednesday March 30, 2022 @03:39AM (#30852398)

Professionals never could have achieved what WHATWG did; professionalism was responsible for the catastrophic pre-WHATWG logjam in W3C. What WHATWG needed was a hacker. And it wasn't an anonymous "someone"; it was specifically Hixie.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:WHATWG: 140 Characters Discourages Intelligent Discourse by fivelessminutes on Wednesday March 30, 2022 @02:43AM (#30852125)

To be fair the fact that's all we had to say, due to a character limit also on HN, proves the article author's point very nicely.

[ Parent | on HN ]