W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > September 2003

Re: string-length example

From: <scott_boag@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 12:40:33 -0400
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Cc: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
Message-ID: <OF3705730F.C4F21F5A-ON85256D9C.0059388C-85256D9C.005B97A5@lotus.com>
I hate to prolong this thread, but I feel I should speak up for Tobias, 
and speak up for myself, for that matter, as a member of the one of the 
WGs producing the spec.  I find the quotation very offensive, and not 
funny.  Anything that uses the term "kill" directed at any person or group 
of persons has no place in a technical specification, even if you had the 
attribution (I assume you would not quote David Duke or Hitler... [Tobias' 
point also], the attribution is irrelevant).  This is not a frivolous 
complaint, nor is it fuzzy territory IMHO.  I think we can find plenty of 
quotes, even non-bland ones, that are not offensive.


public-qt-comments-request@w3.org wrote on 09/08/2003 08:12:59 PM:

> I like to think that lawyers, even in the USA, would be well-enough 
> educated to know the source of the quotation.
> If it is our goal to say nothing offensive to anyone, then we might as 
> say nothing.
> I'm sorry if you are personally offended, or if you are concerned that 
> somebody else might be offended, by the use of a quotation from 
> Shakespeare.  But I do not think it is unreasonable for us to use it. 
> many other sample pieces of text should be accompanied by references? 
> the ones you think might be offensive, or the ones that I think might be 

> offensive, or...?  And should the reference be Normative or not?
> Feeling that this is a strange conversation,
>     Jim
> At 11:05 AM 9/8/2003 +0200 Monday, Tobias Reif wrote:
> >Kay, Michael wrote:
> > > Shakespeare of course was violent and offensive,
> >
> >It that what qualifies this sentence as example for your spec? I'm sure 

> >you'll find many more violent and offensive sentences then, good luck.
> >
> >Shakespeare wrote the sentence as part of some play or fictional story. 

> >How does that justify putting it into a technical specification, 
> >context or source?
> >
> >It sure reflects thoughtlessness to copy "first we kill the lawyers" 
> >the spec and justify this by saying it was written by some well-known 
> >
> >There's an endless list of sentences which were written by famous 
> >which, when taken out of context, are inappropriate and offensive in 
> >new contexts. I'm not sure how that's surprising or why it would be 
> >desirable to do.
> >
> > > but they allowed freedom of speech in his day.
> >
> >Of course you are free to say what you want, but you must be aware that 

> >copying such a sentence without context and without providing the 
> >may be seen as highly offensive by many, especially by lawyers.
> >
> >I didn't say you would not have freedom of speech.
> >
> >I would be ashamed to refer a lawyer (who might be my client in an XSLT 

> >project) to this draft spec, and I would not do so.
> >
> >Instead of accusing me of trying to limit your freedom of speech, it 
> >be much more productive to explain why you think the example should 
> >in the spec, and if it should remain then add a pointer to the source 
> >the quote to the spec.
> >
> >Tobi
> >
> >--
> >http://www.pinkjuice.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ========================================================================
> Jim Melton --- Editor of ISO/IEC 9075-* (SQL)     Phone: +1.801.942.0144
> Oracle Corporation            Oracle Email: mailto:jim.melton@oracle.com
> 1930 Viscounti Drive          Standards email: mailto:jim.melton@acm.org
> Sandy, UT 84093-1063              Personal email: mailto:jim@melton.name
> USA                                                Fax : +1.801.942.3345
> ========================================================================
> =  Facts are facts.  However, any opinions expressed are the opinions  =
> =  only of myself and may or may not reflect the opinions of anybody   =
> =  else with whom I may or may not have discussed the issues at hand.  =
> ========================================================================
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2003 12:40:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:56:49 UTC