W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2005

Shelby's Final Revenge ('I told you so') on Orthogonality of Style and Semantics (e.g. XBL failure, XAML conquest)

From: <shelby@coolpage.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:15:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4973.>
To: www-style@w3.org

Shelby's Final Revenge ('I told you so') on Orthogonality of Style and
Semantics (e.g. XBL failure, XAML conquest)

I finally get to come back here after 3 years, and say 'I told you so'. 
Review my synopsis instruction from 3 years ago:

Shelby's Final Response to Tim Berners-Lee Regarding Semantics

Shelby's Final Position Paper on XBL

(1) First of all, it was obvious that those who replied to "Shelby's Final
Position Paper on XBL", did not have a clue what I meant.  It is not
surprising, because they were not reading what I wrote with an intent to
understand, yet an intent to protect their ideology, due to the conflation
of their logic and emotions (ego).

For example, Herr Christian Wolfgang Hujer's (what a name!) replies (and
those who followed his line of rebuttal) to that post indicated that he
(they) did not understand that I was writing that style ("presentation"
variables) is orthogonal to semantics ("markup" coding).

Semantic markup is the way the coder communicates semantics to the
consumer.  Whereas, style is the way the coder controls presentation of
semantic markup.

For example, if I code that <a>Hickson is hopelessly conflated</a>, then
semantically I want to communicate either the target or source of a
hyperlink.  I may use style to control how that particular (or groups or
all) hyperlink(s) are presented to the user.  But if I use coding to
change it into something which is not a hyperlink, then that coding is no
longer style, but it is semantic markup.  It is really simple to
understand.  It is a 'no brainer'.

(2) Now for the 'I told you so' part.  It seems that in 2003 apparently
some months after I had made my above posts, Microsoft caught on and
dumped CSS-like conflation of semantics and style in their XAML project:


Before I dwelve into XAML's superior model and eventual (defacto)
conquest, let me preemptively squelch XUL rebuttals.  Searching in my
prior posts, note I mentioned that I was not against XUL.  It just happens
that XAML is more generalized and has (will have) more client support (in
2006 forward).  Any one who disagrees, is obviously living in a fantasy.

Remember I was advocating XSL for translation of new semantic markup to
implementation in existing semantic markup specifications.  I saw this as
bridge mechanism in anticipation of direct implementation of new semantic
markup.  XAML is the direct implementation.  As well, one may use XSL on
top of XAML as I described.

There is nothing stopping someone from implementing CSS on XAML.  They are
orthogonal.  One could parse the CSS into equivalent style trees in XAML,
or directly into customized XAML style markup.

It thus follows there is nothing stopping any one from implementing any
kind of style coding orthogonal to XAML semantic markup.

The _key_ superiority over XBL for customized behavior is that XAML
enables (via XML) the definition ("specification") of new semantic markup
without conflating the style layer.

I understand that the markup coder may embed style, just as they can embed
CSS in HTML.  Embedding is not conflation, although one can argue that
best coding practive is to use selectors or trees to associate style with
semantic markup.  And as I stated above, there is nothing architectural
stopping this superior coding practice in XAML over time.

In 2006, XAML enables infinite customized behavior (infinite new semantic
markup) on probably 20% of clients, and towards 60% by 2008.


And we get it without destroying CSS with XBL's conflation of style and
semantic markup.  So 'I told you so'.  I predicted XAML 3 years ago.

(3) If we go back and read Tim Berners-Lee's ('the creator of world wide
wide') reply to my posts 3 years ago, we see that my positions are
completely consistent with what he wrote in that post and his other
writings.  Specifically that style and semantic markup are orthogonal (by
definition), and that specification of semantic markup (either
normaltively or de facto by usage) defines semantics.  And my definitions
of semantic markup and style ("presentation" variables) are entirely
consistent for the astute reader.

Whereas, those who are trying to conflate semantics and style (e.g. XBL)
are inconsistent with Tim Berners-Lee's writings, as I detailed in past

(4) Ian Hickson's ego is so hopelessly _conflated_ with his logic, that it
is not surprising (to me) he does not have such vision.  I doubt there is
anything Ian could write which would deserve my effort to rebutt.  Better
to just let time prove him to be a loser (and prove significance of my
vision when Cool Page 4 is released).  After 3 years, I see he still
populates his personal web site with diatribes about his anal perfection
(never lie, never violent, never inconsistent, atheist, inferiority of
religion, etc).  Yet in his accomplishments we see nothing of commercial
(meaning competing for nature's finite resources) significance on the
scale of the great 'movers and shakers' of the internet wave.  So what if
he was involved in CSS standards, many people were, i.e. he no major
individual accomplish.  Ironically, nature has never been, nor never will,
tend towards order (his perfection via limitation), and so his philosophy
of life is hopelessly (addictively) out-of-sync with the entropy of
evolution (disorder always increasing).  Thus, such players (e.g. Hickson
and much of the ideologically addicted Mozilla tribe) in this W3C group
are hopelessly out-of-sync with reality.  And 3 years after my
instruction, it is now clear.  Hahaha.  Masturbation is not very
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2005 00:15:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:21 UTC