Re: XBL is (mostly) W3C redundant, and CSS is wrong W3C layer for semantic behavior *markup*

At 11:17 AM 1/1/2003 +0100, Daniel Glazman wrote:

Why did you feel the need to post your response 3 times?  It is to try to
force some more of your anger and lack of respect on his thread?


> >>>CSS selectors allows one to select elements of markup based on
> >>>attributes which are not related to *semantics*.
> >>
> >>As an editor of the W3C Selectors Specification, I assure you, that is
> >>most definitely not the intention of CSS selectors.
> >
> > Of course it is.
>No, it is *not*.

Er, what is a class selector?

>You were not part of the discussions that took place
>when we wrote this document

It really makes you angry, when someone that was not involved in your
private party has some input that might threaten your work.

If someone threatens Cool Page (my current main product), then I listen
objectively so I can improve, even if it means I have to throw out the
entire work (begun in 1998) and start over as I am doing now.

XBL is waste of time and that really makes you angry.  I understand that.
But isn't my fault.

One of the oldest and lowest debating strategies is to try to discredit
someone personally when you can not win the debate on the merits.

> and I don't recall any comment
>from you. If you did send comments, sorry for that but you were far
>from a major contributor.

Correct, I did not send any comments at that time.

> Please stop talking about stuff you just don't
>know, this is really very annoying.

You can assert I do not know, but you have done a very poor job in backing
up your claim with facts.  You can slander me as many times as you want (is
3 not enough?), but it won't change the facts of the debate.

We will soon find out if the W3C style group is a closed party or a party
open to factual discussion...

> > You don't understand that CSS is supposed to be hints *ONLY*??
>Wow. Trying to imply that Ian Hickson does not understand something
>about CSS is a deep and major error that deserves apologies.

I understand if Ian and you have worked closely and thus you feel an
alliance with him that you must defend.  Also I have studied your resume at
your web site, and I do not think you have the level of experience I do
with large applications.  Your experience appears to be based more in the
way web evolved as CTO of then Netscape.  As you try to migrate
the web towards applications, you'd be _WISE_ to listen more openly to
someone with more experience in that area than you do.  I am not familiar
with Ian's experience other than he stated that he is co-editor of CSS

Afaics, Ian followed a line of logic which was inconsistent with knowing
that hints are not the same as semantic implementation.  He even asserts
(incorrectly) that XBL (separate from CSS issue) does not define semantics,
which I do not see you defending here.

>I wish the processor of my laptop could get new information as fast
>as Ian does, with a similar level of quality.

Actually my impression of Ian is I agree.  He is very quick with details, I
think quicker than I am.  I inherit from my father (former General Counsel
to Exxon) a very abstract brain.  I work very well in multiple dimensions.
My father and I are known for stepping outside of linear logic flows which
detailed oriented people are often not as good at.  For example, my sister
has a slightly higher IQ than me (~145+), and she can go straight to a
detailed answer faster than I can, but I can then usually present
alternative solutions sets that she can not visualize.  Her mind is so
optimized on "the answer", that she can  not see "beyond the forest".  Not
so surprising then that my father and I are much more successful in life,
because life is more about finding local minima, as there usually is not a
single best answer to any real life problem.

So what I mean to say is that using someone's status as a means to insult
me, just because I faulted his logic, is not very meaningful.

> From all the logorrhea you posted in the current thread,

When I try to be concise, then my words get twisted.  I have tried to end
the debate with a summary that balanced both sides, and suggested _TWICE_
to Ian that we stop at that concise summary, but Ian was determined to
argue each point ad nausem:

>  I can
>assure you something : there is several points *you* don't
>understand in CSS and in potential languages based on the CSS
>general syntax.

Assertion without factual explanation is propoganda.

> Your definition of orthogonality seems to me
>more a rhetoric figure than a real argument we could discuss.

You are free to ignore my logic if you don't understand it.  I will prove
it in the marketplace.  We will see whose product (XBL or XSLT) is more
successful in market for creating custom semantic extensions such as new

>This is my final point in this "discussion".

Unless you have something factual to say, I think that would be _WISE_.

-Shelby Moore

Received on Wednesday, 1 January 2003 08:33:01 UTC