W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 1996

Re: Automatic Entry and Forms

From: Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@beach.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 22:53:13 -0500
Message-Id: <m0tqXWL-0002U5C@beach.w3.org>
To: Robert Hazeltine <rhazltin@bacall.nepean.uws.edu.au>
Cc: Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com>, www-html@w3.org
In message <Pine.SUN.3.91.960225125153.18199G-100000@bacall.nepean.uws.edu.au>,
 Robert Hazeltine writes:
>Hi Dan
>On Fri, 23 Feb 1996, Daniel W. Connolly wrote:
>> Enough of this sort of innuendo, Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt already!
>What I wrote had none of the characteristics you mention.

Umm... what I saw was:

>>If you are naive enough not to see the implications of this, move over and
>>let others overtake.

That certainly qualifies as innuendo in my book. Where is your evidence?
Where is your argument?

>> Cite your sources! 
>> Give evidence!
>> Present your argument!
>I and others contributing to this thread have outlined our concerns.

Where? In the above message, you cited no sources and gave no argument.

If you outlined your concerns in an earlier message, it's possible that
I (and others) missed them. You should reference/excerpt the earlier

> A
>situation which the proponents haven't (they have made many an assertion
>though on how it might be used, for example). 

I can't parse that sentence.

>I have put some argument on the ethics of the proposal, the practicality
>of establishing the data set, the problems of confining it to what was
>initally perceived as good for us, the relative weight to protecting
>machine/system information compared to people, and more. 


>> Phil's draft was a bit brief, but there's nothing wrong with the
>> mechanism.
>Maybe not.  However, my argument when replying to other posters is that it
>is unsafe and we need to reinforce human values as well as promote
>technological excellence.  It patently does not. 

That's argument by assertion. Please give evidence.

>> All it does is save ths user a little typing: it allows
>> the browser to fill in the same info the user gave last time. Just
>> like Quicken's QuickFill (TM?)  feature.
>Actually, Dan I find this a spurious argument just like the con man 
>saying this is good for you while he goes for your hip pocket.  Quicken 
>is an inappropiate example since it's generally used in-house and data 
>does not generally leave the local system; data is not uploaded without 
>human intervention across a public network.

Nor is data uploaded without human intervention in the proposal in
the "Automated forms" draft. The form is automatically filled out,
but not automatically submitted.

>> But if you have a REAL problem with the proposed mechanism, please
>> make your argument plainly.
>I trust I have done better than making the assertion that this is really
>good for you and that it will save a bit of typing. 

Huh? I have no idea what this sentence is about. Are you saying that
you have presented your argumetn plainly? Where?

>> [1] Proposals for Gathering Consumer Demographics
>> http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Demographics/Proposals.html
>> $Id: Proposals.html,v 1.2 1995/11/06 20:05:28 macarthr Exp $ 
>And on which side of the fence does this fall?

What fence? Phil's draft is a small enhancement on one of the
proposals in the draft cited above.

Received on Saturday, 24 February 1996 22:53:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:20:18 UTC