- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 06:53:00 -0700
- To: "stephane boyera" <boyera@w3.org>, <yam@access.co.jp>, <www-di@w3.org>, al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'stephane boyera'" <boyera@w3.org>
At 11:01 AM 7/29/2002 +0200, stephane boyera wrote:
>Considering the fact the start point of this device independence is the
>wide variety of emerging new information appliances
I don't accept that this is a "fact". Also even if that were the "start
point" it is no longer the woof/warp of the fabric of Device Independence.
Generalism, IMO, prevails in all the proceedings herein. We merely use
devices as examples/use-cases/techniques that illustrate general
"principles". We aren't talking just about having tolerance for and
awareness of all present and projected devices but also about independence
from the very idea of "devices" as being the nexus of the goals of
"everyone, everything connected".
The more important shortfall is the mind-set that has attempted to divide
us into "providers" and "users" as if this system were an elaborate form of
broadcasting ("top-down") information rather than facilitation of the
creation/enhancement/sharing of information.
The mantra is "web, not tree". The goal of Device Independence is to have
our information ambient/efficient and independent of the very notion of
devices, not just adapted to particular ones.
Establishing further hierarchies of "content" and "delivery" is retrogressive.
--
Love.
It's Bad Luck to be Superstitious!
Received on Monday, 29 July 2002 09:53:24 UTC