W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2012

Re: not safe

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 19:16:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM=Pv=TpH8UzzzTto-KGwhCsPke89UJoC_JahpxyN2eXo9XNgg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jens O. Meiert" <jens.meiert@gmail.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On 26 October 2012 19:00, Jens O. Meiert <jens.meiert@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > But this is the rant of a megalomaniac
>>
>> Unacceptable: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ListGuidelines
>>
>> Repeat occurrences will lead to removal from the Working Group.
>
> Sam, do you refer to the email as being unacceptable, or the Google+ post?
>
> I agree with the former (calling someone a “megalomaniac” may appear
> offensive) but disagree with the latter (everyone should have the right to
> an opinion, and W3C guidelines don't seem to touch this right).

I might have appeared offensive with my language, but I still don't
see any reason to retract. Hixie was basically saying "let me take
over completely", and given that HTML is mega, his major desire can
reasonably be described that way.

By the way, I've not yet heard from Hixie whether he considered my
language out of bounds - more interesting test, surely.

> What Ian shares is nothing new. Consensus-based decision making does not
> lead to excellence.

I don't disagree. But for things like shared protocols, languages,
excellence isn't the aim, if anything lower-common-denominator is
better, because it ups the chances of connections. Crude word, but
exclusivity. The Web works so far not because it's excellent, it
isn't, HTTP is one of the most stupid protocols going. But it's good
enough to encourage communication. IMHO, and looking at history,
that's where the value is.

Cheers,
Danny.





-- 
http://dannyayers.com

http://webbeep.it  - text to tones and back again
Received on Friday, 26 October 2012 17:16:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 26 October 2012 17:16:54 GMT