re: [gutvol-d] Re: here ya go, joey
i will be responding much less frequently to marcello's posts, because he's a troll... but if anyone thinks he makes a good point, just reiterate it, and i'll be happy to address it. i've noticed in the past when i've said this that few people ever restate his points, so i take that to mean y'all are weary of this constant conflict. meanwhile, i'll deliver pudding that proves itself... have a nice weekend! -bowerbird
Bowerbird wrote:
but if anyone thinks he makes a good point, just reiterate it, and i'll be happy to address it.
Marcello makes a lot of good points, because he's actually making working processes, understands the need to follow accepted standards, and strives for a good product. Certainly he and I have disagreed on a few matters, as is the norm between any two people, but I respect what he is doing, and he's doing all this voluntarily and, most importantly, transparently (in the open.) On the other hand, it is harder for me to try to respect what you are doing because of your refusal to work *with* others in an open manner. Not only is it perceived to be anti-social (PG and DP are based on volunteerism requiring people to get along), but it is self-defeating. I think your ZML is a great attempt at trying to normalize plain texts. Since plain texts appear to still be important in the PG philosophy (even if they will be auto-generated from XML in the future), it makes great sense for the plain texts to be normalized to a single standard that defines the major content structures (this will benefit users of the plain text documents, including for accessibility purposes.)
i've noticed in the past when i've said this that few people ever restate his points, so i take that to mean y'all are weary of this constant conflict.
meanwhile, i'll deliver pudding that proves itself...
I don't think PG just wants pudding -- they want the recipe, the ingredients list, so the recipe can be changed and improved as new needs arise and better ways to do things are dreamed up. PG is NOT the customer buying the food, they are owners of the restaurant, and they have to plan for the future and the needs of its customers. This means: 1) The ZML spec *fully* described and released as a fully open standard, and 2) The code to your various programs published to the group, under an open source agreement. If you don't do both, I don't think you can convince those doing the heavy-duty work of PG (and DP) to embrace your system *even if* your pudding tastes great. PG and DP, by their nature, are volunteer-driven systems that thrive on transparency and cooperation -- this means the use of open standards wherever possible, to fulfill the important requirements of standards conformance and accessibility, and that all code, scripts, etc. are open sourced to the group for maintenance and improvement. It's your choice. Jon
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 01:48:17PM -0600, Jon Noring wrote:
Marcello makes a lot of good points, because he's actually making working processes, understands the need to follow accepted standards, and strives for a good product.
On the other hand, it is harder for me to try to respect what you are doing because of your refusal to work *with* others in an open manner. Not only is it perceived to be anti-social (PG and DP are based on volunteerism requiring people to get along), but it is self-defeating.
1) Marcello frequently makes good points. If he chooses to couch those points in language that conveys the same abrasive tone as most of the email's I've ever read from Bowerbird, well...two wrongs may not make a right, but I don't see where either of you has any moral high-ground on the issue. (NB: Neither do I. I have repeatedly, in the past, found myself responding to Bowerbird's abuse in-kind. In fact, pretty much every time I read an email from Bowerbird, I find myself fighting the urge to puch someone, HARD.)
I think your ZML is a great attempt at trying to normalize plain texts. Since plain texts appear to still be important in the PG philosophy (even if they will be auto-generated from XML in the future), it makes great sense for the plain texts to be normalized to a single standard that defines the major content structures (this will benefit users of the plain text documents, including for accessibility purposes.)
2) There are people on this list who are more than willing to try and listen when good points are made. As angry as Bowerbird makes me, I still read his messages from time-to-time, hoping there will actually be something useful in them. He seems to flirt with being a useful person, but retreats from it whenever it gets close to fruition. Plain text is good. Most of us do not believe that a plain text file can convey the level of meta-data detail and accuracy available using heavier forms of markup, so we see "Plain text as primary format" as undesirable. But I don't think anyone here thinks plain text should just go away. And I honestly believe that, were a *perfect* plain text solution provided, one that had *ALL* the flexibility and the open-source software support that XML has, most of the XML advocates would at least look at it seriously. As it stands, I don't currently see this as a plausible reality.
I don't think PG just wants pudding -- they want the recipe, the ingredients list, so the recipe can be changed and improved as new needs arise and better ways to do things are dreamed up. PG is NOT the customer buying the food, they are owners of the restaurant, and they have to plan for the future and the needs of its customers.
I think this is probably one of the best points I've ever heard made on this mailing list. Bowerbird, thus far, has proposed to provide the world with fish for sale. Myself, Marcello, and Jon (1) would prefer a pole, some bait, and a map to a good fising hole. (1) I hope Marcello and Jon don't mind my speaking for them here, but it seemed a safe statement given previous statements made by each of them.
participants (3)
-
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
joey -
Jon Noring