Maciej Stachowiak 08-03-17 21.04:
Moving to www-archive.
On Mar 17, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak 08-03-16 23.46:
On Mar 16, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
So why would this be out-of-scope for HTML5, while it (still)
includes crap like "Peer-to-peer connections over IrDA"
(<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#irda-peer>)?
Now I'm not sure if you are trying to solve a problem in good
faith or making an ironic suggestion to prove some sort of
philosophical point.
I'm being ironic because I have no idea where the people who decide
what's in and what's out draw the line.
In the future, please let's apply this wise policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point
Kudos to Julian for answering Maciej's question in good faith!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF
I think we all assumed good faith on Julian's part until it became
clear he was trying to game the system to prove a point. I'm glad he
finally said so, but certainly his actions were not in good faith
overall. Not a big deal at this point, but I was honestly confused why
he was suddenly pushing for more HTTP-related requirements in the HTML
spec, when he'd always argued against this sort of thing. A more
straightforward way to illustrate his point would have been to point
out this divergence, ask whether it is appropriate to somehow address
in HTML5, and if not, how it differs from things that are specified in
HTML5, such as content sniffing. These are reasonable questions, but
trying to trick people is not a nice way to go about determining the
answer.
And advice first: when the URL is long, use tinyURL ;-)
I have read the Wikipedia article to which you pointed. And it is funny
how you are stealing words and wording from that article - both in the
question you posed to Julian and now when you are answering me.
Even if you might not realize it yourself, your are committing much of
the same bad deeds that you are accusing Julian for.
Did you never use irony yourself?
Your comments to Julian smells of a preplanned attack - it smelled even
before Julian answered. And the fact that you continued the attack even
after Julian lifted the weil of his ironical commentary, smells the badder.
That is why I hailed Julian for answering in good faith.
As for the Wikipedia article, it contains list of many kinds of behavior
which I could accuse you for.
But also, the Wikipedia article is not an outright list of example of
bad behaviours. It is just as much and advicory article about how to
best get your point through in the Wikipedia system. It is an article
advicing how to work with - instead of against - the system.
For instance, it might have brought Julian further, if had not used
irony. It would, for instance, not have given anyone excuses to go after
him.
Thus the WIkipedia article can be seen as friendly advices to
participants in the Wikipedia. More spesificly, it is not an article
about how to identify trolls.
Whereas the way you presented that article smells more of
demonstration/interrupton to make a point. Or, it reminded me about the
times when I make a discovery about something, and are looking for an
opportunity to present it.
Telling another participant that he is disruptive, also smells of
wanting to silence.
If you believed in the policy you are trying to foster, then you should
not asked innocent questions, but told more openly about your
suspiciions. The we could have had a chance to debate these things.
Instead you saw the possibility to statuate an example. Unfortunatly,
your motives shines all to clear through. You are not gonna convince
many for your case this way. But you might get someone to side with you
against one person. But not more than those that agreed with you in advance.
--
leif halvard silli
