- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:40:52 +0200
- To: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Orion Adrian wrote: > This is where the catch 22 comes in. I've been told there's no > problem, everything is peachy. When I say, hey things could be better, > I'm then told make something up. Indeed, complaining alone without giving something concrete is both easy and useless. You need to make a convincing proof of concept to show what you are talking about is really different from and better than what exists right now. > After I'm told to make something up I > do and then people say there's no problem. If you are talking about your ‘layout’ proposal, I certainly hope it was made clear enough that it was a clumsy and limited model that didn’t really add anything that couldn’t already be done in XHTML + CSS (or even XFrames), with the same level of separation and semantics. With this particular proposal, CSS could have done the layout just fine, and the XHTML 2.0 role attribute would have fulfilled the semantic hints that you wanted to give. So indeed, there is no problem with the current model, or at least the proposal that you made did not show any. > When confronted, I'm > usually just told to go away and start something somewhere else. The > rediculousness of it all is just a little insane. > So, what I find ridiculous, is that even though people give extensive and valid comments as to why your proposal is bad, you apparently either totally forgot about them or ignored them in the first place, because you never tried to improve it based on the comments, and still seem to think that you made a good proposal. What I find even more ridiculous is that you somehow manage to put the blame for that on the people on this list and insanity, instead of being a little bit introspective and realising that you need to come up with something better and more solid than just complaints and a bad proposal. ~Grauw p.s. in that proposal you made, you introduced a difficult and limited syntax involving ‘+’ and ‘%’ and the likes... It would have been better if you hadn’t done that, because as far as I understand the core of your issues lays elsewhere. -- Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands. Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2005 22:40:58 UTC