- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 14:25:14 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
- cc: www-html@w3.org
mjs@apple.com (Maciej Stachowiak) wrote: >I think bridging the descriptivist/prescriptivist philosophical chasm is >probably beyond the scope of this mailing list and thus not worth arguing >about much further. It took decades to settle in the field of linguistics >and we're not going to settle it quickly in the field of web standards. >It's good to recognize the difference, but I can't see either side >convincing the other. The two are not inherently mutually exclusive. Your perspective tends to the Descriptive because you spend all day trying to deal sensibly with the language in the wild. Your experience informs us that there is a need to take into account the actual permutations found in usage. However, uncontrolled mutations have unpredictable consequences so there is a need for direction which can only be provided by a Prescriptive approach. At least in IETF standards processes there is a common understanding that one needs to both document existing practice _and_ define the correct way forward. In the context of evolving HTML, that means there is a legitimate need to define how to deal with existing content — which, BTW, includes not only “tagsoup”, but also content written to be in de jure compliance with previous specifications in the field — but also to specify the correct way to do things today with an intent to move things forward to how they should be done in the future. We cannot possibly hope to achieve it all in one step so compromises need be made, but we cannot abandon any progress toward improvement merely because previous attempts have been met with arguably limited success. Without arguing the merits of any one specific issue (IOW, don't assume I agree on a particular point just because I use it as an example), the current WHAT WG submission describes both a “tagsoup parser” (no negative connotation intended) syntax and a XML-based format. The former specifies how to deal with HTML “in the wild” and documents existing parsers in deployed desktop browsers; the latter provides a way toward the goals for the future. One could easily (and I use the word with a certain amount of irony) produce a specification that satisfied both goals. One point of discussion would be whether the language was defined by its strict XML-based syntax and pared-down vocabulary, and with the specification for handling legacy content relegated to “mere” documentation of existing practice; or whether the specification was the legacy one with the strict version a mere idealized subset. I think HTML 4.01's Strict and Transitional distinction might inform us in that debate, though I suspect arguments can — and probably will — be made on all sides citing it. However, I don't think we need to “bridge the descriptivist/prescriptivist philosophical chasm” in any context other than communication, so we may better understand each others' arguments. A specification such as we are tasked to produce is by its very nature Prescriptive; the question is how much Descriptivism should be applied in its making. -- “I don't want to learn to manage my anger; I want to FRANCHISE it!” -- Kevin Martin
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 12:25:44 UTC