Re: XHTML 2.0 and Semantics

Mr. Dubost, Why would you post this profanity riddled piece of 
self-indulgence to a public mailing list?

Irrespective of the (microscopic)logic of the "argument", Mr. Pilgrim's 
post is self-indulgent and immature; it should not be spread any wider 
than Mr. Pilgrim's already apparently substantial following. If people 
want to subscribe, perhaps out of amusement, to watch his lack of 
self-control and verbal tantrums that's one thing. To have someone, 
particularly a person representing the W3C actually post references to 
Mr. Pilgrims emotional screed and further spread the noise is 
inappropriate in the extreme.

               ...edN

Karl Dubost wrote:
> 
> I think that some people will talk about it here.
> 
> So I think you have already read this entry of Mark Pilgrim.
> http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/01/13.html#semantic_obsolescence
> 
> about http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xhtml2-20021211/
> and http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xhtml2-20021211/mod-text.html#s_textmodule
> 
> I remind people that:
>     1. XHTML 2.0 is still a WD
>     2. You send comments about this XHTML version to the mailing list. 
> Specs are also made by the public... if this public send comments to the 
> mailing list. The process of W3C has to reply to all comments sent on 
> the mailing list when they address specific issues.
> 
>     "Public discussion of XHTML takes place on
>     www-html@w3.org (archive). To subscribe send
>     an email to www-html-request@w3.org with the
>     word subscribe in the subject line.
> 
>     Please report errors in this document to
>     www-html-editor@w3.org (archive)."
> 
> I hope that Mark Pilgrim will send his comments to the www-html mailing 
> list too.
> 
> Thanks.
>

Received on Monday, 13 January 2003 17:09:28 UTC