W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2009

Re: HTML and XML

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 01:28:53 +0000
To: Jeff Sonstein <jeffs@it.rit.edu>
Message-Id: <7E21B715-58F5-4A08-9D6B-E3FF86422D2B@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org, bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
On 16 Feb 2009, at 01:14, Jeff Sonstein wrote:

> On Feb 15, 2009, at 7:35 PM, www-tag@w3.org wrote:
>
>> Jeff, my email address is[snip]
>
> tnx
> good to be able to reply directly

NP.

>> I understand you were "me to-ing" some of Thompson's statements, but
>> you did claim a certain epistemic status in virtue of your particular
>> experience. I dispute that status.
>
> okay...
> I do not claim to be "an expert"

That's fine.

> just a humble teacher of practitioners
> with a bit of experience

Experience is fine. But presumably we're looking for data. And you  
aren't really supplying that much (e.g., nothing about what sorts of  
documents your students produce, what sorts of tools, etc.)

> and nowhere near as much as many on this list

I'm not sure what relevance that has. Expertise isn't as important as  
content (evidence).

>> I also dispute both Thompson's sentiments(?) and the evidence he's
>> thus presented. And yours as well. :)
>
> okay
>
>> For example, I don't think there is a "notable" lack of people
>> advocating XML5.
>
> use in the world will tell that tale
> in the end

No, it won't, really. I'm not sure what makes the lack of advocates  
*notable*. Esp. if you are going to use it to drive usability claims.

Lots of things are widely used but are not particularly usable.

>> You claim, based on your teaching experience, that it is not hard to
>> learn to create valid and wellformed XML consistency. There's a lot  
>> of
>> evidence against it as a general claim and without specifics of your
>> sample, its hard to draw sensible conclusions. Indeed, there should
>> be, contra what seems to be the presumption here, a pretty strong
>> presumption *against* XML's ease. (Just on general grounds of how
>> people fare with formal languages; how we handle error in natural
>> language, etc.)
>
> woah

Yes?

> you sound pretty "hot" about this...

Not really. If you think so, then I think you are reading too much  
into it. I'm just pointing out various aspects of your claim.

> I do have an opinion
> based upon a few years of experience
> but that is all...

I'm confused...you don't think your opinion is worth examination?  Why  
offer it then.

> and I think I am entitled to express that opinion

No one said otherwise. I'm frankly rather surprised that an academic  
would take mildly worded criticism as requiring an appeal to freedom  
of speech.

> just as you are entitled to express yours
>
>> In other words, methodologically, it seems safer to presume that
>> people will do poorly at authoring well formed XML, and then be
>> surprised when they don't.
>
> and here is where we differ

But what are your ground for differing, methodologically speaking? Or  
are you confusing your final conclusion with my proposed  
methodological approach?

> I'm not sure what I wrote that
> got you this "hot under the collar" at me

?? Again, I'm surprised that you would take rather mildly worded, but  
substantial, criticism of your (and others) positions personally. It's  
got nothing to do with you.

> but
> I think we each understand
> the position of the other now
> so
> I'm for letting more folks on the list
> get on with the discussion

You have merely to not reply :) I find it works well.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Monday, 16 February 2009 01:29:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:12 GMT