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

Re: Why Design Principles?

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:04:07 +0200
Message-ID: <4A26D737.30608@malform.no>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak On 09-06-03 05.24:
> On Jun 2, 2009, at 7:19 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Sam Ruby On 09-06-03 01.39:
>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

>> 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.

It seem like I must help you get a feel for how the word is used:

Quite surprising that the article doesn't mention World hegemony 
of United States. Microsoft has also a kind of hegemony on office 
software. Google has above 290 000 finds of "microsoft" and 
"hegemony".

Another explanation of what I referred to as hegemony was brought 
by Sam: "there is a specification being developed by the WHATWG 
that the W3C publishes" [1]. And the way you yourself, in the 
justification, show of how the history of the principles are 
WHATwg bent, is another example.

For that matter, your story about the principles began with a 
story about how a party lost the battle at a meeting in 2004.

> 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.

I'm interesting in real consensus. And to that end, it doesn't 
seem fruitful to not talk about the things that stands in the way 
of consensus. One thing that stands in the way is that you seems 
to look for reasons to ignore any input that doesn't support what 
you propose.

[1] http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/05/12/Microdata#c1242240289
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 20:04:47 GMT

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