Following your construction analogy, people new to standards might know how to use a nail hammer, but not realize that what's called for in a situation is a dry-wall hammer. That's where some guidance even on the tools end is needed.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Martin > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 4:38 AM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] Appropriate postings > > I totally agree which is why I arose the subject in the first place. A > person interested in the building standards shouldn't expect the building > standards group to tell them how to use a hammer. Same goes here. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stuart Foulstone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <wsg@webstandardsgroup.org> > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 6:08 PM > Subject: Re: [WSG] Appropriate postings > > > > > > I have no problem with elementary questions about Web standards. > > > > But there are perhaps too many posts about how to write basic HTML mark-up > > and elementary CSS. This is especially true when the 'poster' has > > apparently not even tried to validate it (and, therefore, not seriously > > tried to solve the problem themselves). > > > > Should we not, at least, expect a list contributor to know the basics of > > HTML and CSS, for example. > > > > At the other end of the scale, there are sometimes posts which seem to be > > more about how to 'work around' Web standards to achieve a particular > > design rather than DESIGN to Web Standards in the first place (usually a > > knock-on effect due to graphic designers pretending to be Web designers). > > > > > > > > On Tue, August 5, 2008 10:00 pm, Jody Tate wrote: > >> I'm a lurker on the list, but primarily because the list, so far, has > >> seemed > >> like a place where people come for help solving specific, remedial > >> problems > >> with long-standing (in internet-time) solutions well-documented on the > >> internet and in books. > >> > >> On 8/5/08 11:10 AM, "Rick Faircloth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> And I would like to know what a list on any subject is for if not for > >>> helping > >>> people understand the most basic principles and application of a give > >>> practice. > >>> A list on any topic must embrace all level of participants, beginners > >>> and > >>> advanced, alike. > >> > >> If we think of the list as a classroom, a teaching environment, then it's > >> standard practice to have separate beginning, advanced, etc. classes. At > >> the > >> university level, for example (in the US), classes at the 100 level > >> tackle > >> different issues than classes at the 200, 300 and 400 level. > >> > >> A list on a topic isn't required to embrace all levels of expertise. I've > >> participated in many mailings lists where some requests for basic help > >> were > >> considered off-topic. Requests for help when answers can be found by via > >> searches or reading books were often seen as inappropriate. > >> > >> I'd advocate (at the risk of sounding snobby), as some have suggested, > >> for > >> different lists--one to accommodate beginners and another to accommodate > >> other developers interested, not in help with standards, but in the > >> standards themselves. > >> > >>> Anyone who thinks a list about web standards should not first have as > >>> its > >>> mission > >>> to teach and clarify the basics of the tools of standardization, such as > >>> CSS, > >>> is > >>> mistaken. Unless expressly stated, a list must cater to the lowest > >>> common > >>> denominator of its participants, not the highest. By doing so, those on > >>> the > >>> bottom > >>> are lifted up, instead of always being pushed down and kept in the dark. > >> > >> To think a list about web standards doesn't need to have teaching as its > >> first mission is not mistaken, it's considering that a different goal or > >> multiple goals might be acceptable. > >> > >> Web standards are not new, though they may be new to some list users. > >> Teaching can be a function, but if helping others with the basics is its > >> sole function, as it's becoming here, it neglects another portion of the > >> list's members, those who have been using web standards since their > >> inception and hope to have extended discussions about, for example, XHTML > >> vs. HTML5, CSS3, current and upcoming browser implementation of > >> standards, > >> emerging standards and so on. > >> > >> -jody > >> > >> -- > >> Jody Tate > >> http://staff.washington.edu/jtate/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ******************************************************************* > >> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > >> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > >> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> ******************************************************************* > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************* > > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ******************************************************************* > > > > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************* > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1594 - Release Date: 8/5/2008 > 9:49 PM ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
