W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

RE: "image analysis heuristics" (ISSUE-66)

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:08:24 -0800 (PST)
To: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Shelley Powers'" <shelley.just@gmail.com>, <public-html@w3.org>, "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "'Larry Masinter'" <masinter@adobe.com>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Matt May'" <mattmay@adobe.com>, <w3c-archive@w3.org>, "'Paul Cotton'" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "'Philippe Le Hegaret'" <plh@w3.org>, "'Michael\(tm\) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, "'Ralph R. Swick'" <swick@w3.org>, "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <chaals@opera.com>, <1981km@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <007301caa770$82d2f6c0$8878e440$@edu>
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> Sigh.  I'm a contradictory jerk?  Really?
> Dude, I didn't contradict myself.

Really? Then why didn't you actually correct the impression that Aryeh 
suggested by saying it was in fact not 100% accurate? Why didn't you say 
that the thread was favoring removal of the text and point to UUAG, a 
position you found acceptable?  Instead you essentially agreed with his 
dismissive and insulting characterization - thus prompting Ian to make the 
unacceptable change he did. Comments about suffering in hell for eternity 
and having God follow specs *is* being a jerk, especially in a forum where 
others can read/hear those comments. If you were on a public transit bus and 
somebody started talking very loudly using similar types of commentary, you 
too would likely think the person(s) to be jerks.

> I think that removing the specific
> technology reference and pointing to UUAG is acceptable (not
> necessarily required, but acceptable).  Aryeh's summary doesn't say
> anything against that.

No, it doesn't say anything really. It simply makes fun of alternative 
points of view without actually adding anything constructive to the 
discussion. Yet at the same time it appears to be the basis of the change 
made by Hixie.

> And I really think that *was* an accurate summary.

Perhaps of 'perceptions', but not of next-steps moving forward - which I've 
documented earlier - showing that the majority were in agreement of removing 
the text and pointing to UAAG. Unless you can provide evidence to the 

> It's what I got
> out of the discussion, at least, and I read every message that comes
> through this list.

As do I on topics concerning accessibility - you can slug it out all you 
want on draft-abarth-mime-sniff and RDFa/Microformats and what-have-you. I 
have no horse in those races, and refrain from commenting.

The larger issue however remains - Ian asked two people in IRC for their 
opinion(s)/recollections and made a change based solely on that.

> So, seriously, tone down the rhetoric and insults.  It's not helpful.

Nothing I have said is rhetorical - I have stated facts as I and what I 
believe others see them.

If you are offended by my characterization of that particular IRC discussion 
thread, by stating that the participants were being jerks, then perhaps you 
and Aryeh should think twice before tossing off comments like that. Whether 
or not you are actually a jerk (and I really have no reason to believe you 
are) is less the issue than the impression you left. If you cannot see how 
those comments could be construed as offensive and belittling to others who 
have entered this discussion with pure heart and higher motives, then you 
are (IMHO) missing an important part of the larger discussion. It's about 
respect, and to expect it you must also give it.

Received on Saturday, 6 February 2010 21:09:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:10 UTC