- From: Graham Klyne <GK@acm.org>
- Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:00:16 +0100
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 11:19 AM 10/10/97 +0100, Martin J. Dürst wrote: >On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Graham Klyne wrote: > >> In private discussions, it has been suggested to me that language issues >> are a poor basis upon which to develop a "quality" rating system -- there >> is just too much subjectivity involved. [...] >In conclusion, I guess it is fair to say that a "quality" rating >system that is developed ONLY on the basis of language issues >will not be a good solution. But a "quality" rating system that >ignores language issues will probably be as bad, if not worse. I think that is a fair comment. [...] >Also, there might be some drawing in Postscript that doesn't show >well in HTML, or some important link or form in HTML that isn't >as convenient in Postscript, and the human end user may not know >what is more important to him/her until he has looked at one >(or both!) versions of the document. So how should the arithmetic >be able to figure this out :-? I think that captures the sense in which it was put to me that arithmetic has limited value for combining quality factors. GK. --- ------------ Graham Klyne GK@ACM.ORG
Received on Sunday, 12 October 1997 13:05:37 UTC