W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Formal Recorded Complaint

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 08:56:01 +0900
Message-Id: <038F437E-5F5E-4750-A4E6-EB58A38B22D3@w3.org>
To: public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>

Just to illustrate why some arguments can be misunderstood sometimes  
(and there are more than two sides). James it is just taken as an  
example, so let's not make it a personal issue.

Le 1 août 2007 à 06:29, James Graham a écrit :
> I would argue that semantics-for-the-sake-of-semantics is not  
> Solving Real Problems (c.f. the design principles).

Why this sentence is an issue?
It paints a black and white situation. it characterizes two camps:

* one as a bunch of (not realistic) academics
* one as a bunch of (realistic)     engineers.

I have seen this debate in many places in different circumstances.

* the student of humanities/the student of engineering
* the teacher/the factory worker
* etc.

academics, teachers, students of humanities are dealing with *real*  
problems and they try to solve them.  So in a discussion, if we start  
by saying, "You are not in touch with reality", it removes all  
possibility of discussions and convergence. Because on both camps,  
people *know* they are dealing with real problems or issues. It is  
specifically why they are talking about.

An electrician and a physicist knows what a lamp is and what it does.
They have a complete different understanding of it though. It doesn't  
invalidate both of their points.

Just this simple sentence will put off many people in the discussion.  
If repeated over and over, I would, personally, quit such a group.

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 23:56:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:24 UTC