W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2008

Re: UA support for Content-Disposition header (filename parameter)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:48:59 +0100
Message-ID: <47DEE74B.1010808@malform.no>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>

Maciej Stachowiak 08-03-17 21.04:   
> Moving to www-archive.
> On Mar 17, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Maciej Stachowiak 08-03-16 23.46:
>>> On Mar 16, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>>>> So why would this be out-of-scope for HTML5, while it (still) 
>>>>>> includes crap like "Peer-to-peer connections over IrDA" 
>>>>>> (<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#irda-peer>)?
>>>>> Now I'm not sure if you are trying to solve a problem in good 
>>>>> faith or making an ironic suggestion to prove some sort of 
>>>>> philosophical point.
>>>> I'm being ironic because I have no idea where the people who decide 
>>>> what's in and what's out draw the line.
>>> In the future, please let's apply this wise policy:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point 
>> Kudos to Julian for answering Maciej's question in good faith!
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF
> I think we all assumed good faith on Julian's part until it became 
> clear he was trying to game the system to prove a point. I'm glad he 
> finally said so, but certainly his actions were not in good faith 
> overall. Not a big deal at this point, but I was honestly confused why 
> he was suddenly pushing for more HTTP-related requirements in the HTML 
> spec, when he'd always argued against this sort of thing. A more 
> straightforward way to illustrate his point would have been to point 
> out this divergence, ask whether it is appropriate to somehow address 
> in HTML5, and if not, how it differs from things that are specified in 
> HTML5, such as content sniffing. These are reasonable questions, but 
> trying to trick people is not a nice way to go about determining the 
> answer.

And advice first: when the URL is long, use tinyURL ;-)

I have read the Wikipedia article to which you pointed. And it is funny 
how you are stealing words and wording from that article - both in the 
question you posed to Julian and now when you are answering me.

Even if you might not realize it yourself, your are committing much of 
the same bad deeds that you are accusing Julian for.

Did you never use irony yourself?

Your comments to Julian smells of a preplanned attack - it smelled even 
before Julian answered. And the fact that you continued the attack even 
after Julian lifted the weil of his ironical commentary, smells the badder.

That is why I hailed Julian for answering in good faith.

As for the Wikipedia article, it contains list of many kinds of behavior 
which I could accuse you for.

But also, the Wikipedia article is not an outright list of example of 
bad behaviours. It is just as much and advicory article about how to 
best get your point through in the Wikipedia system. It is an article 
advicing how to work with - instead of against - the system.

For instance, it might have brought Julian further, if had not used 
irony. It would, for instance, not have given anyone excuses to go after 

Thus the WIkipedia article can be seen as friendly advices to 
participants in the Wikipedia. More spesificly, it is not an article 
about how to identify trolls.

Whereas the way you presented that article smells more of 
demonstration/interrupton to make a point. Or, it reminded me about the 
times when I make a discovery about something, and are looking for an 
opportunity to present it.

Telling another participant that he is disruptive, also smells of 
wanting to silence.

If you believed in the policy you are trying to foster, then you should 
not asked innocent questions, but  told more openly about your 
suspiciions. The we could have had a chance to debate these things. 
Instead you saw the possibility to statuate an example. Unfortunatly, 
your motives shines all to clear through. You are not gonna convince 
many for your case this way. But you might get someone to side with you 
against one person. But not more than those that agreed with you in advance.
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 21:49:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:18 UTC