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

Re: Why Design Principles?

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:05:28 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0906031405y2e4cf021jfaf7ec35c468b624@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no> wrote:
> 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'll note that several people on this list, including Sam, has
interpreted the word "hegemony" with a negative slant.

Given that there seems to be disagreement regarding if "hegemony" has
a negative slant or not, maybe it's best not to use the word at all?

That way we can just agree to disagree regarding the meaning of the
word and move on to debate technical matters instead.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 21:06:22 GMT

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