W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2013

Re: NU’s polyglot possibilities (Was: The non-polyglot elephant in the room)

From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 18:22:29 +0900
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <20130126092228.GH42246@sideshowbarker>
[trimming the Cc list and moving to www-archive]

Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@målform.no>, 2013-01-25 23:37 +0100:

> Alex Russell, Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:11:56 -0500:
> 
> > I'm honestly trying to understand the real-world harm in giving up on
> > polyglot.
> 
> The real world harm is that it would make the W3C look very 
> paternalistic. Can the W3C afford that?  

Dropping the word "paternalistic" into this discussion seems like a pretty
big non sequitur. (Or whatever the appropriate term is in formal logic.)

Or to keep things simple I guess I should just say it seems pretty kind of
silly to use that term in this context.

I think I sort of understand what it is you might be trying to say, but it
then seems to me you could just as well be asking, "The real world harm is
that it would make the W3C look like it was trying exercise stewardship
over the Web. Can the W3C afford that?"

> So everything is there. It is ready. The fruit is very low. And so, if 
> W3C were to say: Don't pick it! Then its paternalistic.

I don't think the fruit-picking metaphor is adding to your argument here in
the way you might hope it would.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Saturday, 26 January 2013 09:22:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 26 January 2013 09:22:43 GMT