- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:56:31 -0500
- To: xml-uri@w3.org
At 02:51 PM 2000-06-13 -0400, W. E. Perry wrote: > >I am striving, through process, not for 'zero' semantics, but to elaborate from >simple syntax, considered in context, the most exuberant as well as the most >particularly detailed semantics possible. How have my words so often repeated been >so misunderstood? I apologize that I have communicated this so crucial point so >badly. > Thank you for your perseverence. Yes, I had misunderstood you. At this level I entirely agree with you. Maybe we come down a little differently on the utility of reasoning from a third party assessment of "common parlance" in guessing what your interlocutor meant. But that difference even if present is down in the noise. Your emphasis on the end user being the ultimate arbiter of understanding is remarkably similar to the decision architecture that the WAI got the W3C to accept in reversing the precedence order of user vs. author applications of !important status in CSS. In CSS1 if the author style sheet marks a style rule as !important and the user style sheet marks a different style rule governing the same document content as !important the author's rule is applied. In CSS2, it is the user's rule that gets applied when this collision happens. Which is the way it should be. If there is a constraint that must be preserved for data validity, we need a way to say so in something not clasified as 'style.' Al
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 15:40:22 UTC