W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2002

Re: Public list or not? (Was What are Semantics?)

From: David Luce <edgebender@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:19:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <20020820141929.64188.qmail@web12303.mail.yahoo.com>
To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>, Svgdeveloper@aol.com
Cc: tbray@textuality.com, www-style@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org


Please accept my appologies for continuing this
discussion when perhaps it is not appropriate. This
topic struck a cord with me personally this morning,
so for the first time I'm responding.


Are you discussing regulatory control or governance?
EDI standards and indeed semantic standards bodies
like ebXML and RosettaNet can spend years in gaining
consensus on semantics for their communities.

It seems by attempting to force XML into a predefined
set of XML tags like XHTML, some central body will
control what will and will not be qualified as

Whereas it seems to me that the power and benefit of
XML is that any community can define a set of tags
that have meaning and a purpose for them. This should
not be lost.

Perhaps it might be beneficial to consider qualified
symantics as those where a given community has some
form of published list or a published namespaces of
some sort.

Merriam-Webster defines the following:
semantics: of or relating to meaning in language
language: the words, their pronunciation, and the
methods of combining them used and understood by a
community: a unified body of individuals
meaning: to have in the mind as a purpose 


--- Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net> wrote:
> > 
> > It also states, "due to the sheer volume of email
> received, the 
> > TAG cannot guarantee that every issue raised on
> the list will 
> > be addressed.". Thus, clearly, issues can be
> raised on the public 
> > TAG list which are not going to be formally
> addressed by TAG. 
> > Why are you wishing to constrain such public
> discussion?
> This cannot be taken to imply a free-for-all. The
> TAG should restrict
> discussion on www-tag to the point where they can
> reasonably follow all
> conversations if not explicitly respond to all
> issues.
> > 
> > If TAG wishes to change the rules for posting to
> www-tag (and, 
> > for example, confine it to officially accepted TAG
> issues) I 
> > suggest that another W3C list (www-tag-feeder?)
> > be established to allow public discussion of
> issues which may be 
> > relevant for TAG.
> Posting one issue request is one thing. But
> conversing at length without
> a clear issue is totally different. I'd say that the
> latter should go to
> xml-dev (in this case).
> -- 
> "When I walk on the floor for the final execution,
> I'll wear a denim 
> suit. I'll walk in there like Willie Nelson, John
> Wayne, Will Smith 
> -- Men in Black -- James Brown. Maybe do a Michael
> Jackson moonwalk."
> Congressman James Traficant.

Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 12:36:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:03 UTC