W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Getting beyond the ping pong match (was RE: Cleaning House)

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 00:19:58 +1000
Message-ID: <463DE40E.1030001@lachy.id.au>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: www-html@w3.org

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>>> If we follow the draft we actually find that the burden of explaining 
>>> what real practical problems can occur is on the proponents of the idea,
>> The burden of proof is on the ones making the claim.  The claim is that 
>> predefined classes create real, practical problems.  Prove it!
>>
>> Some of the classes were chosen because they are widely used.  We have 
>> statistics to show that, for example, copyright is the 9th most widely 
>> used value.  What is the problem with using assigning a definition that 
>> is compatible with the dictionary definition of the term?
>>
>> http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/classes.html
> 
> I do have a problem with you claiming that a plausible example is
> implausible and ignoring requests to back that up,  especially if you
> demand demonstration of evidence and proof of others.

I did not claim it was implausible.  I claimed it was hypothetical 
because it was presented without any evidence to back it up.  There have 
since been some examples presented, which is good, but still no 
explanation of what problems are caused.

But, here's some evidence to support the definition of class="copyright" 
in the spec.  The following sites all use the value in a relatively 
compatible way.  Although some use it on elements other than those 
allowed by the spec, it's the value that's important.  However, I agree 
that's a bug in the spec.

http://slashdot.org/
http://www.news.com.au/
http://www.msn.com/
http://www.mozilla.org/

These used id="copyright", but it's the value that's important, not the 
specific attribute.

http://ten.com.au/
http://au.yahoo.com/
http://www.yahoo.com/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

These used similar values.  While they're not exactly the same, they're 
close enough to be considered in support of "copyright".

http://ninemsn.com.au/ (used class="copyrightline" which is similar)
http://youtube.com/ (used id=="footCopyright")

> If you have any statistics that indeed show one thing or other, it'd be
> great if you could share them with us. The document above does not con-
> tain useful statistics as the reader is not given any means by which to
> determine whether the used sample is representative for any particular
> question of interest. In this sample it might come out as #9, using some
> other sample it might be #3 or #99, the numbers just aren't useful.

It is clearly stated in the introduction that the study used "a sample 
of slightly over a billion documents".  Hixie has also done subsequent, 
though unpublished, studies with much greater sample sizes.

http://code.google.com/webstats/

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 14:20:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:10 GMT