Dean Edridge wrote:
James Graham wrote:
you mention Sam Ruby but his ideas about extensibility are something
many people are interested in exploring; I had several discussions
about incorporating SVG and MathML into HTML at the TPAC with Anne,
Hixie, Doug Schepers, Patrick Ion from the MathML working group, and
probably others who I forget. One way of adding these things to
text/html is via a general extensibility mechanism. The difficulty is
purely technical - how can we extend text/html without breaking
compatibility with legacy parsers, whilst maintaining an
easy-to-author syntax?
This is totally off topic James. This has nothing to do with what I have
complained about.
If you want to see this problem solved
I have never commented on this particular issue.
I believe I replied to this in a previous (non-archived) email indicating my
(perhaps poorly expressed) reasons for bringing up this example.
the answer is not to kick up a fuss about the fact that someone else
hasn't solved it, but to invest some time in finding a solution.
LOL. Just as well I have a thick skin to handle all these false
accusations from you lot eh? :) I most certainly are not kicking up a
fuss about this James. You have your wires crossed sorry, this is a
separate issue that I myself have not entered into yet.
As I said before I meant this suggestion to refer to issues in general and not
the specific issue of SVG in text/html. I apologise for the confusion caused by
my poor expression of what I was trying to say.
The second issue is the way that you are participating in the working
group. In my mind, coming in, arguing forcefully, not seeing the
changes you want and then escalating the issue, whilst at the same
time personally insulting several members of the group calling them,
for example, "unprofessional"
Ian Hickson has most definitely been "unprofessional". If you had read
my post with an open mind you would have seen that. And I have every
right to express my concerns regarding him.
I have not seen any evidence of Ian acting unprofessionally. It's not clear to
me that this difference in opinion necessarily makes me closed-minded. It is
possible, for example that we simply have different definitions of
"unprofessional", that we have different levels of expectation, that we have
examined different evidence, or that one or the other of us is being biased in
our assessment by our opinion on technical issues lining up more or less with
Ian's. It's worth considering all these possibilities before throwing about
accusations.
and "[a] smart a%$ kid",
I spoke out of frustration of having people from your crowd jump in and
hijack my threads. I should be able to discuss XHTML5 without people
turning them into html vs xhtml arguments.
That person was certainly being a $name_I_called_him. If the W3C staff
have a problem with that email I sent to www-archive, and the language I
used; they are of course welcome to discuss this with me, they have my
contact details.
My problem is certainly not with your language, but with the contempt you
displayed for other members of the working group, and with your need to fall
back to ad-hominem attacks rather than evidence-based arguments. I don't think
this is a useful or productive way to engage with other members of the group.
makes your arguments seem less rational and more emotional, thereby
devaluing them. For comparison, there have been other groups and
individuals who found that the spec was not entirely to their liking
and were cynical about the prospects for change. However, in at least
one case, it happened that once they tried to be open minded
Just what are you trying to say here James? I am in fact one of the more
open minded participants in the group.
I'm trying to tell you how I perceive you interactions with the group, with the
hope that this helps forge a productive working relationship.
--
"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
-- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
