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 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:39:55 GMT