W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 1999

RE: CSS vs XSL, what is going on

From: Matthew Lye <mlye@trentu.ca>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 12:27:43 -0400
Message-Id: <199906101627.MAA23589@eniac.idirect.ca>
To: "W3C style list" <www-style@w3.org>
At 02:30 PM 6/10/99 +0200, Barry van Oven wrote:
>Micheal, if you want to stir up the pot or invoke a flame war, please do so
>elsewhere. I assume the majority of this list's followers either have been
>following XML.com directly or have heard about it from other sources. There
>is no need to bring up this discussion again, other than you trying to
>garner support for your cause.
>So, please, stop doing it!

To which, Benjamin Hardcastle added:

>Yeah, didn't seem to be particularly relevant anyway. Looks like a personal

I subscribe to the www-style list to keep an eye on things, rather than 
out of professional interest.  I have no particular stakes in the debate 
that Mr. Leventhael is writing about.  To put my rather whimsical heart 
on my sleeve:  I'd rather read a closely formatted document than a 
loosely formatted one;  I think the current concept of font royalties is 
archaic - an issue that would seem inherent in any font specifying 
language;  and I'd rather see documents that utilize the preexisting 
interactivity of common OS aspects, rather than either somewhat limited 
(to the point of jury-rigged) frame and form solutions, or individually 
written, individually buggy Java scripts or applets (sure, Java is great 
for removing needless workload from the server...  but in common usage, 
especially pertaining to I/O, it seems to always boil down to a kludge at 
the bottom of the pot).  These faint convictions would seem to put me all 
over the board...  but I outline them merely to emphasize the marginality 
of my involvement in style language debates.

However, I have pretty strong opinions about conversation and etiquette, 
and I'd like to convey my concern with Mr. van Owen's and Mr. 
Hardcastle's replies.

Taken at face value, Mr van Owen's concern regarding redundancy is 
misplaced - I had not been following the xml.com discussion, and was 
quite happy to read Mr. Leventhael's entire post.  I am not in much of a 
position to judge the inflammatory potential of the post, but Mr 
Leventhael's words did not seem to include any personal attacks, and 
regardless, the best way to deal with attempts to start a flame war is 
always to ignore them and to leave it to the moderators of the forum to 
react.  Regarding Mr. Hardcastle's reply, a literal reader would have to 
assume that Mr. Hardcastle was exceptionally inattentive today, as Mr. 
Leventhael's post contains no indication that it is a personal e-mail;  
in fact, it would seem intended as a public document.  This is fine.  
People have - respectively - the right to have concerns, and the right to 
make incorrect assumptions.

However, taken together as an attempt to characterize the original post 
and to form or represent the opinions of the list, I find these replies 
objectionable.  Firstly, Mr. van Owen's imperative declaration to Mr. 
Leventhael that he must stop discussing such things on the list would 
seem to be a false assumption of prerogative, whether he is speaking as 
the voice of the list moderators or the voice of the populace as a whole. 
 Secondly, the reasoning behind his demand is flawed - Mr Leventhael 
could hardly 'garner support' if everyone was already familiar with and 
positioned on the issue - and would seem to characterize the post as 
propagandistic.  Regarding Mr. Hardcastle's reply, I can only hope he was 
confused, or has subsequently regretted it, because otherwise - unless I 
am confused myself - it seems like an intentionally false statement, 
which would presumably serve to signal Mr. Hardcastle's regard for Mr. 

I have never addressed this list, nor would have done so, but that I felt 
Mr. van Owen and Mr. Hardcastle implied my accord - as the abstract 
auditor - with their responses to what Mr. Leventhael has written.

from the peanut gallery,
Matt Lye
Received on Thursday, 10 June 1999 12:27:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:50 UTC