- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:53:01 -0400
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
On 03/26/2010 10:20 AM, Shelley Powers wrote: >> >> Apparently, you got some blowback from the CSS-orthodoxy. We also have an >> accessibility-orthodoxy, an XML-orthodoxy and possibly quite a few >> additional orthodoxies to deal with, each of which require that we worship >> in their various churches. > > I'm hoping that you're being facetious, because what you've done is > pretty much described a majority portion of the user base for the > HTML5 spec -- and Apple's, Mozilla's, Google's, IBM's, Opera's, and > Microsoft's customers. And in a way that struck me as being > dismissive. > > You all are enjoying this quite long semi-permathread, and that's > cool. But when you referring to significant proportions of this > group's user base as "standardistas", and seemingly dismiss the > concerns of large numbers of people in some form of tech elitist > frenzy, maybe you need to step back and re-establish your perspectives > a bit. Orthodoxy is NOT a bad thing. When I was growing up, the rule was fish on Fridays. I have friends that avoid pork, and ones that avoid all meat. What we have here is a number of groups here who take the position that my rules rock, your rules suck. This is particularly problematic when the rules that are committed to the spec are inconsistent. I want to take a consistent position. One where we are inclusive of everybody's rules, or at least one where treat each constituency consistently. I want each set of rules to be captured. I want each set of rules to be strongly encouraged. Where I draw the line is that I don't want people to be able to say that google.com is incorrectly using the text/html mime type simply because they don't escape their ampersands. - Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 26 March 2010 15:53:48 UTC