W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Secret URLs and TAG deliberations

From: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:22:00 -0800
Message-ID: <5691356f1001231522s36af3c55y2b7d6c8cc6bbfb03@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
> Tyler:
>>> 4. The TAG is currently sticking to its finding that
>>> prohibits use of the web-key technique because Noah
>>> Mendelsohn says: "I don't like that". There are no other
>>> substantive arguments that I could attempt to refute.
>
> This is nonsense for several reasons. First, Noah actually
> gave substantive reasons, and the characterization of his
> actual discussion (necessarily summarized in the minutes,
> since we don't have transcripts) is patently unfair.
>
> Secondly, this message itself is chock full of substantive
> arguments.
>
> Finally, this and Tyler's following outburst this
> morning really are questioning the assumption of the
> TAG, as chartered:
> http://www.w3.org/2004/10/27-tag-charter.html
> including the section "Participant Qualifications"
> and the decision process involved.  Frankly, I
> don't think should be left unchallenged. I have yet
> to see any example of any TAG member in the history
> of the TAG make any assertions that are simply
> and merely based on "personal preference" without
> reference to architectural principles, past experience,
> a concern for the proper operational future of the
> web, and followed by discussion of substantive
> reasons for making a claim. Tyler, if you are willing
> to stand by your insinuations, please supply some
> evidence of  any contradiction of TAG member behavior
> to the principles by which the TAG is chartered,
> or else withdraw your insult.

Please go back and re-read my original email. I stated upfront that I
knew the information I had been provided with was prone to
misunderstanding and said I was looking for clarification. After
stating what I had understood, I explicitly said I hoped it was
incomplete and that clarifications could be provided. Above, you claim
that the published information was "patently unfair", but choose to
find insult in my request for clarification and elaboration. Are you
sure that's a sensible way to handle my request?

I think you've got the wrong idea of my perspective on this issue. I
am not looking to undermine the TAG and am not part of any cultural
revolution that threatens your heritage. Quite the contrary, I have a
great deal of respect for the things I think the TAG got right. In
fact, I think it got those things more right that it realizes and that
the Web could be much improved by improving adherence to those
principles.

I'd rather spend what time I have for this issue responding to Dan
Connolly's recent email than tangling with perceived insults. I'm glad
we agree that arguing based on likes and dislikes is not useful and
hope we can proceed under that assumption.

--Tyler

-- 
"Waterken News: Capability security on the Web"
http://waterken.sourceforge.net/recent.html
Received on Saturday, 23 January 2010 23:22:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:32 UTC