Re: NU’s polyglot possibilities (Was: The non-polyglot elephant in the room)

Michael[tm] Smith, Sat, 26 Jan 2013 18:22:29 +0900:
> [trimming the Cc list and moving to www-archive]

The context: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Jan/0167.html


> Leif Halvard Silli, 2013-01-25 23:37 +0100:
>> Alex Russell, Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:11:56 -0500:
>> 
>>> I'm honestly trying to understand the real-world harm in giving up on
>>> polyglot.
>> 
>> The real world harm is that it would make the W3C look very 
>> paternalistic. Can the W3C afford that?  
> 
> … "paternalistic" … seems like a pretty big non sequitur. …

Antonyms and synonyms: http://thesaurus.com/browse/paternalism?s=t


Just consider it an *antonym* for "Making W3C the Best Place for New 
Standards Work" 
http://www.w3.org/QA/2010/06/best_place_new_standards.html

Also, when the HTMLWG adopted its current policy last autumn, we agreed 
to be friendly towards extension specs.

> I think I sort of understand what it is you might be trying to say, but it
> then seems to me you could just as well be asking, "The real world harm is
> that it would make the W3C look like it was trying exercise stewardship
> over the Web. Can the W3C afford that?"

If you think it is of major importance that Polyglot Markup doesn't 
materialize, then yeah, perhaps you could use such a big word as 
stewardship about it.

But if I were to rephrase, then I would have said: "The real world harm 
is that it would make the W3C look quite unfriendly for specification 
development. Can the W3C afford that?"

>> So everything is there. It is ready. The fruit is very low. And so, if 
>> W3C were to say: Don't pick it! Then its paternalistic.
> 
> I don't think the fruit-picking metaphor is adding to your argument here in
> the way you might hope it would.

For someone that doesn't want to lift his finger it is any positive for 
Polyglot Markup: Clearly not.
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Saturday, 26 January 2013 12:43:16 UTC