Re: what matters is what's said, not what's meant

>On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 08:50, pat hayes wrote:
>[...]
>>  Suggestion: lets decide to NEVER make rules that require consistency.
>>  What we can do is to make rules about what should be done if
>>  inconsistencies are detected, or about who is responsible for
>>  clearing up the mess, or whatever.
>
>What's the difference?

Seems obvious. Like the difference between saying that it SHOULD NOT 
rain, and saying that you if you want to keep dry you SHOULD seek 
shelter. One makes sense, the other just seems silly.

>  >  But if we say that its wrong to be
>>  inconsistent, then the task of being right becomes unmanageably
>>  complex very quickly.
>
>How does the difference between "you're wrong" and "you're
>responsible" make the task any easier?

You might not want to have the mess cleaned up, and might not care 
that it be cleaned up; which is fine. BUt if you do, then we can 
maybe give you some guidelines of how to set about doing it.

I didnt mean to imply that the presence of a contradiction must be a 
sign that something has gone wrong. Perhaps 'mess' was the wrong word 
to use.

>
>>    Its almost impossible to be SURE you are
>>  avoiding inconsistencies whenever you open your mouth (or your web
>>  server), even if you want to: and as Peter points out, you may well
>>  not want to be consistent with everyone.
>
>Yes, to open your mouth is a risk. This is news?

I meant only that there's no point in setting out to state 
architectural principles that would make it impossible to speak if 
taken seriously.

>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Received on Thursday, 9 October 2003 19:36:12 UTC