- From: Mike Barta <mikba@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:56:07 -0700
- To: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Joe, I believe we all understand the desire you are expressing to have a clear language here, but there are several of us who believe that the term semantics is overloaded. I submit that your assertion that it is generally understood to mean 'meaning', or more precisely apprehension, prediction, and meaning, by web standards folk is both true and incomplete. In fact semiotics means precisely that, but it has been supplanted by the focus on the syntax and semantics of syntax within structured languages, e.g. web content. So while the term may seem to have a concrete meaning for industry it may be misleading to policy makers in that it is not actually the precise term. Are we splitting hairs here? Most likely we are. Rather than argue about the possible multiplicity of parsed signifiers I would rather focus on the issue at hand, i.e. how to convey clearly to a broad audience that we are requiring 'valid' or 'validated' content with these SC. Or that we are requiring that 'signified' information be conveyed in a syntactic manner. I agree with your point that well formed is non-sgml, that was my mistake in adding it, and that we need to find text to convey what we mean by this. I also agree that _within standards community_ semantics is used to mean meaning, means of connoting meaning, and even to represent data models. People in industry have little difficulty understanding what is meant in context. But we need to write this document as unambiguously as possible and frankly 'semiotics are convey through syntactic convention' may be precise but it is opaque to most readers, as are the incantations using semantics. We need plain language that conveys our intent. Since you do have a solid and clear idea of what is meant might you be able to restate it without domain specific words ( for semantics has a different meaning outside this domain, c.f. linguistics ) so that general readers would understand what is required here? Thanks, Mike p.s. top posting screed may be omitted I know the arguments and still like it better thank you. -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joe Clark Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2005 8:24 AM To: WAI-GL Subject: RE: Semantics [was: Re: Well-formed (was: Re: F2F Proposed Resolutions Draft Updates)] >> 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. The sole source used for the vague and counterfactual guideline was one person's Web page. So OK, let's not call it a blog. Now try to disprove my point. > We don't use semantic because it is used to mean both document semantics and > verbal semantics. That isn't a problem, though Gregg seems to think i tis. > Even the list of experts that you queried and posted to the maillist > say that both uses are legitimate. Please go back and reread the submissions. In the context of Web development and markup, there was *no* dissension in understanding the sense of "semantics." SOME OTHER SENSE OF THE WORD DOESN'T MATTER. The Web Accessibility Initiative uses polysemous terms all the time. Keep fighting this and you're going to become a laughingstock among the group of developers most committed to following WCAG. In fact, that's already happening. > To avoid confusion we have tried to avoid using document semantics - > that is true. It still uses the term "semantics," meaning it doesn't actually solve the claimed problem, meaning the claimed problem was false, incorrect, or a smokescreen. > All of the words removed or rejected were proposed by other members and > many words of the chairs have been not accepted. Yeah, except those words were figments of the imagination, like "cascading dictionary." I'm talking about a term in widespread use for the last four years that the Working Group is on some kind of crusade to discredit. > Everyone has a hard time finding the right words. (a) speak for yourself abd (b) that isn't what we're talking about, but as usual Gregg tries to recast the argument in ways he prefers. Let's switch to all-caps again: EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE BUSINESS USES THE TERM "SEMANTICS." It's an embarrassment that the WCAG Working Group is even arguing about it. This is not a question of "finding the right words"; the right words have been long found and used. What some of you are having a hard time with is accepting outside reality. And that makes you look foolish. The rest of Gregg's post was another restatement of "In fact, the Working Group is ruthlessly fair to everyone, and could you please be a bit nicer, Joe?"-- the former of which is untrue and the latter of which is off-topic. -- Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/> --This. --What's wrong with top-posting?
Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 20:56:12 UTC