- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:39:09 +0200
- To: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- Cc: Jon Ferraiolo <jon.ferraiolo@adobe.com>, www-svg@w3.org, Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
On Monday, October 25, 2004, 10:17:26 AM, Jonathan wrote: JC> However could you please expand on this reply* which might seem highly JC> offensive to some. Jonathon, First, please chill a little before re-reading Jons comment in its original context. JC> I imagine that you wouldn't wish to be perceived as considering that JC> pre-literate population has no right, desire or ability to publish. JC> Yet it is evidently clear that at the present time they don't have the JC> appropriate tools and mechanisms. JC> perhaps you could describe how you personally, or Adobe are engaging JC> with the community of 'amateurs' and the pre-literate to meet their JC> needs. This is a strawman argument. You attempt to join two disparate communities, not-very-good programmers and the pre-literate, then pretend Jon was primarily addressing, even attacking, the second group. JC> people who are pre-literate face many problems engaging with the web. Yes they do; note that nothing Jon said had any bearing on this group. JC> SVG and sXBL have the potential to help, however this means everyone, JC> and I mean everyone engaging with those less able than themselves, in a JC> particular field or endeavour. You miss the entire point. Previously, using scripting in SVG meant that one person coded something up, and only people at the same level of coding skill could re-use, modify, or integrate this for a different purpose. sXBL allows components to be created which are robust and self contained. Furthermore it allows those components to automatically bind to declarative markup, and to be used in combination. Two different programmers can create components, without ever talking to each other or planning their designs together, and a third person - a non programmer, certainly not a professional programmer - can take those components and use them *in combination* without necessarily understanding how they work under the hood. They just have to know that to make scrollbars you group things inside a fo:scrollregion and to make things draggable yuo as i:draggable, and so on. Indeed, since people don't have to know how to use them, it implies that even authoring tools could allow these components to be added i a drag and drop manner. All of that is a benefit and makes these sorts of facilities available at a lower knowledge level. Assuming the components are sufficiently robust; Jon was arguing against facilities what would make for less robust components and thus, components that would have been harder to use, more puzzling to use in combination, required greater programming knowledge to make work. None of which has anything to do with people who can't read. Instead, you took one word out of context 'amateur' and proceeded to blow up. JC> *On 29 Sep 2004, at 17:59, Jon Ferraiolo wrote: JC> I think it is much more important to provide a robust facility for JC> professional developers who create robust components with all of the JC> appropriate mutation event handlers to take care of things like JC> insertion and deletion of LI elements than it is to create an JC> "easy-to-use" mechanism which might allow amateurs to create components JC> which do not take care of insertion and deletion and thus are not JC> robust. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Monday, 25 October 2004 16:39:10 UTC