- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 16:14:15 -0500
- To: "'Joe Clark'" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Interesting post. >OK, so let me understand this: The Working Group is contemplating >issuing a vague and counterfactual guideline based on one person's >blog posting, There was not based on a Blog posting. It was pointed out that we wanted all structured markup languages to be well formed - and the easiest way to say that was to reference SGML since they are all from that family. I still see some clean up needed on this one - but it was a first pass at getting at what we reached consensus on doing. > but is prepared to argue for hours that concepts like "structural" > and "semantic" are undefined (or the opposite, already defined), > even after a mountain of published evidence to the contrary is provided? We use structural all over the place. I don't understand this part of the comment. We don't use semantic because it is used to mean both document semantics and verbal semantics. Even the list of experts that you queried and posted to the maillist say that both uses are legitimate. To avoid confusion we have tried to avoid using document semantics - that is true. We also avoid using many other terms that can cause confusion. All of the words removed or rejected were proposed by other members and many words of the chairs have been not accepted. >I guess this is again about who makes a proposal rather than the >content of the proposal. Content (or even making basic sense) never >seems to be a barrier for some guideline proponents. This is a recurring theme in your posts that seems to imply that your comments are "not accepted" more than other peoples'. This simply is not true. Everyone has a hard time finding the right words. And everyone's posts get commented on and edited and revised and commented on and revised before we get something we use. Occasionally someone posts something first time that we can use but it is rare (and delightful). Both of the co-chairs have had many many more things rewritten or not accepted than you. Many times as many things. There is no filter for particular people's input. Those submissions that have the best success rate are those that look at the problems from all points of view and try to take all the different sides into account. Also - different people, coming from different directions, have different ideas as to what is right. The consensus building process is not one of just arguing one's point - but of trying to find wording that addresses the concerns of all the different factions as best we can. That is the nature of consensus. It drives me crazy sometimes - and is hard sometimes. But it is what consensus standards are - and when they will be used in policy areas (as this one will undoubtedly be after it is released) it is a much different animal than a technical standard - and ends up with many different dynamics and rules it must follow. Thanks for your input and comments Joe. But if you can turn down the rhetoric I would help a lot. We value the technical part of your posts. Always have. Don't always agree and you aren't always right. But you very often are, at least on the technical aspects, and it is valuable input. Please listen to others' too though - and remember that this isn't all just technical issues. There is a lot of effort going into writing these so that they will work with humans - and often not deeply technical humans - who will use them in a number of ways. We need to address these issues as well as the technical ones. I don't think the guidelines look like what any one of us on the working group would write. Everyone would like to write them to look different. But they do look like what the group has reached consensus on. And contrary to your apparent belief, there are a lot of good and knowledgeable people in the group. And they represent and consult with many more. But they must also work within their constraints. Stay with it. But listen to hear what other's concerns and constraints are. Sometimes it's hard. Sometimes very hard - to find wording that all can agree to - and that will survive all the outside forces. Thanks Gregg
Received on Saturday, 18 June 2005 21:14:18 UTC