W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2003

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

From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 12:19:44 -0600
Message-Id: <4.1.20030104111451.018fede0(null)>
To: John Lewis <lewi0371@mrs.umn.edu>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

I will reply to everyone who posted since my last post with a single reply.

Regarding the attempt to bring Cool Page or any personal accomplishments
into the debate, I will just point out (all of which has been documented
already...go read the thread):

1. I did not mention my experience first in this thread (still have
not...you have no idea the projects I have worked on).

2. I was not the first to insult someone.  I did fight back.  I even
mentioned regretted fighting back, although I will defend myself when the
noise gets too ridculous.

3. I've asked kindly several times to be able to end my discussion here,
yet some people keep challenging me to come back here.  That is what I
meant by "you just can't let it go...".  Well I also apparently just can't
let it go when people write things which are incorrect about my points.  So
I've decided to make one last emphatic response!!!

4. I specifically mentioned several times in this thread not to judge Cool
Page on W3C correctness, because it is well known fact that wasn't the goal
of Cool Page.  Nevertheless, I earned $3083 on Cool Page (almost pure
profit in my pocket) from Jan. 1 - 3 while I was spending most of my time
here farting around.  I also mentioned that we were going to radically
change the web with Cool Page as result of research I am doing now (of
which this thread as a component).

5. I can't even get Tanjek's web site to render correctly in IE5.5.  It is
off the left side of window.  And I could not quickly find any references
where he is a major component of semantic web __research___ and
___theory___ at the level of Tim Berners-Lee and his cohorts.

6. The attempts to discredit me personally in order to discredit the proof
I have made here in this thread, is simply of form debating that happens
when one side is desperate and has lost the debate.  I never discredited
any one here.  I only said it is a fact afaik that Tanjek and Ian are not
involved in semantic research and theory at the level of Tim Berners-Lee.
I was comparing them to TBL.  I also in this thread, praised Ian for his
intellect (a long paragraph about it... find response to Daniel Glazman).
I did not talk about Ian's personal web site where he says he "never lies"
and is "never inconsistent".

7. As for Tanjek's righteous bull$h8 about what I should do to communicate,
go to church if you want to preach.  I came here to make technical points,
which have not been refuted.  Where is the normative reference that says
specification is semantics????  Where????? 

8. As for Tanjeks theory that just because TBL makes many specifications
(his "actions" instead of "words" diatribe), therefor he has made
specifications equal to semantics.... that is not illogical and doesn't
prove any thing...

9. As for Tanjeks W3C reference which explains what W3C Recommended
specifications are, it does not mention semantics at all.  And as for
Tanjeks assumption that language == semantics, that is definition by
assumption.  Again I challenge any of you to contact Tim Berners-Lee so he
can explain to you about the differences between semantics and
specifications.  No quantity of words from any of you (or me) can
substitute for his words in the area of semantics.

10. As for Ian's cited mentions of semantics in HTML 4.01 spec, of course
the specification attempts to specify semantics.  But no where does it say
that it _completely_ controls semantics.  There is a big difference between
trying to control something and actually controlling it.  That is why TBL
understands that centralized semantics will fail, just as he mention
previous attempts ("KLF") have failed.  No need for us to argue about what
TBL wrote.  Any one can go read from the links I provided.

11. We have all searched Google looking for a normative reference to cite
which would state unequivocally that specification _completely_ controls
semantics and none of us have found it.  That should tell you something
about the fuzziness of semantics.  We can not just _ASSUME_ that
specification _completely_ controls semantics, unless their exists a
normative reference.  There isn't any reference, much less a normative one.

Now below I will lay the final argument which will unequivocally explain
why semantics is NOT _completely_ controled by specification, nor is it
desireable.  This quick summary should by no means replace what TBL has
said in total.  It is just a special case of what TBL is doing.

There are brave smart people in this thread that will understand and
possibly even extend the work I started here...   It will be difficult for
them to speak up, because they know they will be ridiculed and illogically
obfuscated as I have been here.  But they are lurking.  I am sure of that.
Because there is no way W3C would be this successful, if there weren't some
people lurking who have open minds.  In fact, I know I haven't seen one
complaint to my thread from @microsoft yet :-)   And I know there is an
@microsoft here, because he commented on my "sentence spacing" thread.

Go ahead blast me as much as you want.  I do not care. It will not change
the fact of who has presented the truth and who is just ignoring the truth :-)

In meantime, keep searching for that normative reference that states
unequivocally that semantics is _completely_ controled by specification...
I'll be waiting VERY patiently...

I have drawn my line in the sand.  I am waitin for the normative reference
that states unequivocally that semantics is _completely_ controled by
specification... I'll be waiting VERY patiently...

(btw, I repeat things because some people seem not to read them if I state
only once, or they ask the same question multiple times)

At 12:41 AM 1/4/2003 -0600, John Lewis wrote:
>I agree, and here's why:
>There are at least two types of semantics: those defined by HTML and
>those defined by authors and readers (i.e., humans). In a variety of
>ways, CSS can change the meaning of a document--but only to a human.
>No property in CSS affects the HTML specification; although I'm not
>familiar with XBL, I've seen no proof that XBL can change the
>definition of HTML elements either. It's like someone manually typing
>an undefined element into a text editor; the element has no meaning in
>HTML, even though it may have meaning to the author.
>Shelby, I assume you disagree with me; can you change my mind? (Or
>have I changed yours?)

Axiomatic Proof:

1. Specification defines the meaning of HTML, which within the constraints
of that meaning, defines what implementation _should_ do.  Deviations in
implementation which do not violate the specification, are allowed by the
specification.  The specification (by definition of specification) does not
allow deviations which would violate the specification.

2. Thus any deviations which are not allowed by the specification, would be
changing the semantics as defined by the specification.

3. XBL can most certainly change the implementation of HTML tags to some
thing which disagrees with specification

End of proof.

You can try as much as you want to disprove that, but it can't be
disproved.  There will be no need for me to reply to any more illogical

Now if we can agree on that above, I would love to come back and tell you
about all the wonderful and powerful advantages that will come from
decentralized semantics and from keeping the semantic implementation
separate (orthogonal) to the non-semantic implementaion.  But I will not do
that until I get some recognition for the hard work I did here, and stop
wasting my time with illogical replies...

I am smirking now and loving every minute of it :-)

- Shelby Moore
Received on Saturday, 4 January 2003 13:18:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:05 UTC