W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Issue-57

From: Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:11:41 +0000
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA2A3A90.1148D%xiao@renci.org>

On 6/24/11 12:30 PM, "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:

>On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org> wrote:
>> On 6/24/11 11:32 AM, "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:
>>>On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org> wrote:
>>>> First, let me make this clear. I have never denied the problem you
>>>> described here is not a problem. My argument has always been
>>>> is a wrong solution to the problem.
>>>What I have always heard you say is that httpRange-14 was not a
>>>solution to any problem. That's a very different position. I'm glad
>>>you've come around; getting you to agree that it *is* a solution,
>>>however inadequate, was my only goal here.
>> Let me be clear. My position has never be changed. I don't think
>> word-playing here does any good.
>> Any solution must be doing something because it will otherwise not be
>> called a solution. But a solution can be evaluated to be good by the
>> criteria of whether it can do something. If this is the point of
>> then let's not waste time debating any solution.
>> My criteria of evaluating a solution is to see if it does more *harm*
>> *right*. And by that criteria, I think httpRange-14 is a *bad*, if not
>> *wrong*, solution because the web with httpRange-14 is much more
>> difficult, if not impossible, to work with.
>You are saying that the solution comes with a cost, and I agree. You
>are also saying that the cost is unacceptable, and I am undecided on
>that - it certainly looks to me like a judgment call - and from where
>I stand the Web without httpRange-14 is much more difficult for *me*
>to work with, so I make the call the other way. In any case what we
>need to start with is a different way of solving the same problem -
>the problem of expressing information (such as title, license terms,
>etc.) about documents on the web. Otherwise you're comparing apples
>(designs in which problem A is addressed but not problem B) with
>oranges (vice versa).
>What is your solution to that problem? You've said you don't know what
>metadata is, so let's just start with statements using Dublin Core
>elements and the xhtml vocabulary (license and so on).

I have stated my solutions many times. Here it is again:

Don't ask people to make inference from *how* a message is received. Ask
people to make assertions in the message *explicitly*, with more refined
terms suited to their intended granularity.

Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 17:12:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:39 UTC