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] *******************************************************************
