W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2009

Re: Why Design Principles?

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:24:01 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-id: <D429C4A3-A72D-4DF7-98BC-81FF4F2C6369@apple.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>

On Jun 2, 2009, at 7:19 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> Sam Ruby On 09-06-03 01.39:
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> Hi Leif,
>>>
>>> Your response takes the tone of a conspiracy theory. Things like  
>>> your use of the word "hegemony" and your apparent belief that the  
>>> Design Principles are an elaborate plot against the profile=""  
>>> attribute make it hard to evaluate or respond to your feedback.
>>>
>>> In the past you've lumped Rob Sayre in the same "hegemony" as Ian,  
>>> yet Rob has stated his strong opposition to many of Ian's actions  
>>> as editor, and even wrote an alternate HTML5 draft that makes  
>>> different decisions on what features are in or out.
>>>
>>> I can assure you that the Design Principles were not written with  
>>> profile="" in mind. As one of the editors, I personally do not  
>>> care either way about profile="", and I've certainly not made it  
>>> my mission in life to stamp it out. In fact, if it were up to me,  
>>> I would make use of profile="" conforming, if only to remove the  
>>> need to argue about it further.
>>>
>>> I suggest you resubmit your feedback without the conspiratorial  
>>> tone.
>> I also take exception to the use of terms like "hegemony" (hey: am  
>> I in on it too?), but would also like to add that public-html is  
>> intended for technical discussion.  People have a hard enough time  
>> keeping up with the bandwidth as is, meta-discussion such as this  
>> one should be taken off list, possibly copying www-archive in order  
>> to allow others to see and/or refer to it.
>
>
> I'm sorry that I did not notice this reply before it was repeated in  
> the public html list. I did not speak about 'hegemons' but about  
> 'hegemony'. I'm sorry if this term is less clear in the Anglophone  
> world than I thought. Usually, though, I think one uses  more  
> neutral words about formal leadership.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony

The article you cite says hegemony means "the dominance of one nation  
over others", a "type of empire, wherein, the imperial state controls  
the subordinate state with power". This is not a value-neutral term. I  
find it absurdly overwrought to compare practices and beliefs in a  
standards group to imperialism in international relations.

I'd like to engage with you constructively, but sometimes it seems you  
are more interested in railing against what you see as the power  
structure of the group, than in helping the group make progress.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 03:25:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:25 GMT