- From: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:01:38 -0500
Matthew Raymond wrote: > I think it's clear from the context of my previous message > that I was neither referring specifically to you, nor did I > make any claim to know your thoughts. Based on the language you chose, that wasn't clear to me at all. Let me quote: Matthew Raymond wrote: > No, because you don't understand what you're > really developing. ... I may not like the > idea of semantics styling languages, but what I like less is > a series of half-a**ed unconscious attempts to create > semantics styling integrated into HTML. Maybe your is a use of language is different from that which I am not familiar, but as I read it, "you" referred to me. "You" can refer to the collective, but your context didn't support that intrepretation. And the "you" wouldn't have been bad had you not included the "half-a**ed unconscious attempts" as part of your closing statement. As such, even if you did mean "you, collectively", I still find it disrespectful. Matthew Raymond wrote: > There's nothing respectful about the tone of your reply. I didn't intend for it to be; I was responding as I was responded to. However, out of respect for everyone else on WHATWG this will be my last comment on the list regarding the above issue. If you want to debate the merits and non-merits of adding semantics to HTML, or "semantic styling languages" as you call it, I'll be more than happy to in a mutually respectful context. -- -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org/
Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2006 20:01:38 UTC