On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:21 PM Michael A. Peters
wrote:
> On 07/25/2017 10:45 AM, Jonathan Zuckerman wrote:
> > This suggestion might have more success with the W3C? I'm not completely
> > clear on the politics and history of the two orgs, but it seems like the
> > W3C
On 07/25/2017 02:42 PM, Qebui Nehebkau wrote:
On 25 July 2017 at 17:32, Michael A. Peters wrote:
Nor does his assumption that I am "new" to the web somehow disqualify me
from making suggestions with current use cases that could reduce the bloat
of traffic.
Oh, then
Michael, I was truly dismayed to see your reaction to my email. Qebui's
interpretation is close to my intent, but upon re-reading it I agree that
it seems condescending so, right on for calling that out. I want to point
out that I am nobody at the WHATWG - I just lurk on this list and pipe up
when
On 07/25/2017 02:29 PM, Qebui Nehebkau wrote:
Wow, that was unnecessary. "Working with the web since the late 90s"
doesn't intrinsically make you any more right or any better a web designer
than some 12-year-old from Geocities. If maintaining your worldview depends
on assuming that anyone who
Wow, that was unnecessary. "Working with the web since the late 90s"
doesn't intrinsically make you any more right or any better a web designer
than some 12-year-old from Geocities. If maintaining your worldview depends
on assuming that anyone who disagrees is "too biased", your worldview is
On 07/25/2017 10:45 AM, Jonathan Zuckerman wrote:
This suggestion might have more success with the W3C? I'm not completely
clear on the politics and history of the two orgs, but it seems like the
W3C has supported JSON-LD in the past, so they might have some interest in
expanding it.
On a
This suggestion might have more success with the W3C? I'm not completely
clear on the politics and history of the two orgs, but it seems like the
W3C has supported JSON-LD in the past, so they might have some interest in
expanding it.
On a personal note, I think you've got really far down the