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

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

From: Kris Vanderwater <kris@meridian-ds.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:45:13 -0600
Message-ID: <43832EF9.1080404@meridian-ds.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org

Wow, umm... generally I don't even respond unless it seems like 
something REALLY needs responding to.  I'm afraid this particular post 
is in dire NEED of responding to... on 2 fronts.

1.) Shelby, whoa man, let's back it up here.

I'll start by saying I read this e-mail in its entirety.  I even looked 
up the words I had never seen used in this context (mainly 
orthogonality).  And having been a big proponent of what I think you're 
talking about I'll say this, I think you're correct, but we'll get back 
to that.

Daniel Glazman seems to have hit the nail on the head here.  I wasn't 
around 3 years ago so I can't even begin to guess what when down, or why 
you seem so bitter.  I'm also not going to read through a battery of 3 
year old material to find out why you're so bitter, suffice it to say, 
coming here and insulting people because you were right and they were 
wrong is... well the height of arrogance.  They may have totally seen 
what you've been saying and completely agree with you from a technical 
point of view already, however you aren't giving them much of a chance 
to say so.  Instead you've outright attacked them without so much as a 
second thought to what might have happened in their corner of the world 
since last you debated this.  Conversely it is possible they still 
completely disagree with you and the concept in general, BUT verbally 
attacking/bashing them isn't a very productive way to get acceptence for 
your ideals.

Ultimately pointless put-downs and attacks is really just a form of 
masterbation for your own ego... you're now officially on the same level 
as those you seem to be bitter towards... of course, that is how 
bitterness works... isn't it?

2.) As I said before, from a technical standpoint I think we agree.  If 
what you're trying to say is that style, markup and structure should all 
be encapsulated in their own environments that are assembled by the 
browser, then yes, we agree completely.

Having not kept up with XAML I can't even begin to speak towards a good 
portion of your post, but being a big proponent of XSL I definitely 
caught what you were saying there.  The whole idea that I can 
essentially object orient my html coding is just... well friggin awesome.

Now, I've gone out on a limb here and I could be totally naive about 
what it is that you're really talking about and maybe you'll relegate me 
to the same little corner as those you've already mentioned.  However, 
I've done my best to be diplomatic.

In closing:

I can see technically where you're coming from and again, assuming I 
understand what you're saying I agree.  Obviously the w3c did as well if 
the efforts to implement XSL have continued.  I'm not sure what your 
beef with moz is, but I dare say from a web perspective... the greater 
portion of standards supporters have a bigger beef with IE (and likewise 
MS) for obvious reasons.

Concerning attacking members of this list... that seems completely 
uncalled for, and I've done my best to say that in a very nice, 
diplomatic way that will hopefully put me in a favorable light, and one 
that you might actually listen to.

If you'd like to educate me further on the whole XAML thing, you can 
feel free to reply to me personally.  But I would suggest that any 
further derogitory comments directed at members of the list be 
squelched... so some people disagree with you... big fricken deal.  It 
happens, it's life.  Let's do something constructive instead.

Kris

shelby@coolpage.com wrote:

>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
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0215.html
>
>Shelby's Final Position Paper on XBL
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Jan/0147.html
>
>
>(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:
>
>http://wesnerm.blogs.com/net_undocumented/2003/10/xaml_and_standa.html
>http://www.simplegeek.com/commentview.aspx/b7e02709-0112-4977-9b73-1aa9d471a570
>
>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.
>
>http://xaml.sourceforge.net/talk/dotnet-dec-2004/slides.html#xaml-18
>
>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
>posts.
>
>
>(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
>productive.
>
>
>  
>
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2005 14:46:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:41 GMT