Re: XMLLiteral handling in RDFa in HTML

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> Shelley Powers wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net<mailto:
>> rubys@intertwingly.net>> wrote:
>>
>>    Shelley Powers wrote:
>>
>>
>>        On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Anne van Kesteren
>>        <annevk@opera.com <mailto:annevk@opera.com>
>>        <mailto:annevk@opera.com <mailto:annevk@opera.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>           On Thu, 28 May 2009 15:18:11 +0200, Shelley Powers
>>           <shelley.just@gmail.com <mailto:shelley.just@gmail.com>
>>        <mailto:shelley.just@gmail.com <mailto:shelley.just@gmail.com>>>
>>
>>        wrote:
>>            > In fact, that's my biggest concern: that discussions
>>        should occur
>>            > directly between RDFa and HTML5 folks are not happening,
>>           happening offline, or
>>            > snarkily, in IRC (
>>            >
>>
>> http://lastweekinhtml5.blogspot.com/2009/05/rdfa-guys-wake-up-and-smell-pilgrims.html
>> ).
>>
>>           What do you mean? At least Sam Ruby and Philip Taylor are
>>        debating
>>           the technical issues with the RDFa crowd right on this
>>        mailing list.
>>
>>        I meant exactly what I said: it would have been helpful to have
>>        folks who have implemented RDFa libraries in JS participating,
>>        because they will have the best understanding of the issues.
>>        That's not a condemnation of the folks, just an observation that
>>        the discussion isn't as inclusive as it need be.
>>
>>    The most I can do is make *this* place hospitable.  If there are
>>    issues that are preventing others from participating here, I ask
>>    that Chris and I be informed as to what these issues (either on-list
>>    or off-list) are and I am committed to resolving them.
>>
>>    I hope that the folks that have implemented RDFa libraries in JS do
>>    chose to participate when they are ready.
>>
>>    - Sam Ruby
>>
>> Actually Sam, these emails are cross posting between RDFa in XHTML TF and
>> the HTML WG. My wistful hope was directed more as a hint to the folks on the
>> RDFa side. I can understand if they choose not to participate. I'll be
>> disappointed, but I can understand.
>>
>> My other comments were directed more at the HTML WG et al side, but saying
>> them will solve nothing. People will act directly, and positively, or they
>> won't.
>>
>
> I wasn't going to comment on it, but since you have been pushing it: I
> would like to hold everybody to the same standard.
>
> "incorporating a negative emotional tone in a writing can be an eff, even
> pos, tool"
>
> http://twitter.com/burningbird/status/1848643851
>
> "Or you could be like me, and slather it on, like bar-b-que sauce on a
> roasting pig. The sweet, spicy kind."


Sorry, doesn't fly Sam. And you may want to consider not acting as papa to
me, because I'm older than you. Correcting what you perceive to be
weaknesses in my general behavior, or my general writing, outside of
anything to do with the immediate discussion or even HTML effort, is
beginning to irritate me.

Now, that was a criticism, imparted in a negative emotional tone. However, I
didn't write it in an aside to others, in the background as a tittering
teenager in emails, or among my prepubescent-like friends, in an IRC
channel. I wrote it to you directly, and it is how I honestly feel.

I have many faults, but one fault I don't have is being passive aggressive.

Of course, I also respect what you're doing, that you have a tiger by the
tail in trying to keep a volatile set of people together and working, and
I'm one of the more volatile of the set. As such, I can also appreciate why
you're pointing out these issues, and that you probably don't mean to be
coming off as papa, but are just trying to demonstrate we all have to be
accountable by the same standards.

And I also must admit to being pretty irritating myself.

So I'm not saying we all have to agree, or that we all have to be Shiny
Happy people in a display of siblinghood that is inherently dishonest. I'm
saying that if people have problems, concerns, issues, or yes, even a
negative reaction to an event, an action, a proposal, suggestion, or other
communication, that they express such directly to the people, and within
these discussions so we can openly confront the differences, and work
through the problems.


>
> http://twitter.com/burningbird/status/1851027745
>
> The most I can do is make *this* place hospitable.  Yes, people will be
> snarky at times.  I simply ask that they do so elsewhere.  On that note, I
> have no quibble with you.
>
>  Shelley
>>
>
I can agree that snarkiness should occur elsewhere. But I still believe that
those who issue the snarky comments should also follow up with direct and
specific responses to those who are the target of their snarkiness. The
response does not have to be friendly, but it should address what is their
real concern, honestly, and yes, even bluntly if necessary .

Case in point: Mark Pilgrim had specific issues with some of the comments
made in this thread. His comments were given with a wink and a nod, but
there seemed to be some underlying valid concerns about the issues. If he
wanted to snark in IRC, cool. Whatever turns him on. But by not saying
anything directly in this discussion, all he's done is toss feces like a
monkey, bored in his cage.

James Graham, well, I don't think I've seen anything from him, other than
snarky. And he seems to rarely disagree with what is said, directly.

More importantly, Ian has implied problems with the discussion, but I've
only seen him respond in this thread once. I think if he has other problems,
then he should address them directly. I don't care if he's "nice", as long
as his concerns are out in the open. Directly. Where we can have a true
discussion about them.

I suppose if a person is not part of the working groups (WhatWG, RDFa, HTML
WG), they're off the hook. Well, not as a person, but in regards to any
responsibility to the groups. And I must admit I'm having a difficult time
asserting who is part of what group. However, if they are part of one of
these groups then no, there's no excuse for not dealing with people
directly.

I hope you would not consider these types of responses, making *this* place
inhospitable.

Shelley


>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>