W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2009

RE: FW: [Bug 7034] New: change "conformance checker" to "ideology checker" or "loyalty checker"

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:56:08 -0700
To: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
CC: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8B62A039C620904E92F1233570534C9B0118CDAC6D32@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>
Hi Michael,

Well, the humor in the "issues" list lost the context... 

Since I'm trying to catch up on 3000 emails about what's happened
in HTML land, a "bug" in the bug data base to change
"conformance checker" to "ideology checker" -- well, there's
no indication in the bug itself about what the real issue is,
why it's in the issue list, what the substantive issue might
be, etc.

Part of the procedural anomaly of the HTML working group is
that tracking what's happening is more than a full-time job.

To the extent that the issues list and the bug database
don't make sense without reference to an ongoing discussion,
it's confusing. I'm frustrated at the impossibility of
catching up after even a brief absence.

And no, I'm not trying to be patronizing; sorry if it seemed
that way. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael(tm) Smith [mailto:mike@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 6:32 AM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Subject: Re: FW: [Bug 7034] New: change "conformance checker" to "ideology checker" or "loyalty checker"

Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, 2009-06-18 02:59 -0700:

> I looked and it isn't April 1st. I think the question of whether the normative
> requirements in the document are appropriate for any role other than those
> of the "four major browsers" [...] is legitimate,

Of course it's legitimate. I really hope you don't seriously think
I personally believe otherwise.

> and turning it into a joke deflects legitimate discussion.

If there's a "joke" here, it would seem it began with a statement
that Rob used in his original message -- one that he intentionally
chose to phrase in somewhat humorous way, in order to make a point
(and a point that, for the record, I happen to agree is actually a
very legitimate point worthy of further discussion).

And it continued with me attempting to respond in kind with a bit
of similar humor to make another point (though arguably one far
less worthy of spending much time discussing further -- at least
perhaps not very worthy of discussing in the way in which the two
of us find ourselves doing now).

One of the things I happen to really like about Rob is that he has
an ability to inject a measure of levity into particular
discussions and to thereby help make them a little more lively and
engaging than they would have been otherwise. At least I think he
*tries* to do that sometimes -- though he's not always successful.
I also try to do that sometimes, and am probably even *less*
successful at it (for example, in the case that prompted you to
send this message to me).

I don't think such attempts at humor actually deflect further
discussion. In this case at least, they in fact seem to have had
the opposite affect.

So, I'd like to ask you to please consider my part of the "joke" as
a good-faith, well-intentioned attempt to respond to a specific
statement in certain part of a particular discussion in the same
kind of good-natured manner in which that statement was made.

> I'd expect more from a "W3C Team Contact".

Somebody other than me might misinterpret that sentence as being
intentionally patronizing. But I'm certain that you didn't intend
it that way.


P.S., I elided part of what I quoted from you in the first
paragraph of this message because the part I elided seemed to me
to risk distracting from the point you actually wanted to make.

Michael(tm) Smith
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 13:56:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:33 UTC