[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I sympathize with the terminology pain.
In working with semiotics, we deal with
terms coined when Vicky was the Queen.
I got lost in the HyTime/Groves/DSSSL
terminology a long time ago. It is as
said: obscure.
But when one goes to abstract from existing
standards, the question of normative references
will come up. Drop those and it is a rip off.
Leave those, and all one needs is a synonym
dictionary to keep to the high road.
Be careful here. You think of the SGMLers as
an elite. I know them to be anything but that.
I think of the W3C as ogilopolists. I loathe
to move concepts originated in the commons
into private hands pursuing pseudo-innovation.
Lessig's problem is not realizing that his
heros are the truck drivers for the ogilopoly.
len
From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com]
> Or perhaps we could call them that and honor
> those who came before. More respect and
> less unattributed rip off would be a nice precedent,
> and seriously overdue on the web. Otherwise,
> we are just a bunch of tomb robbers.
Oh. Come now. There are other and better ways to respect predecessors that
to keep up a bad name. I mean, what's your problem with adding on any such
spec:
"This work is inspired by, and borrows many idead from Architecural forms"?
I for one am glad that the sensible Ghanaians chose to rename the patchwork of
nations the Brits stitched togather in to the "Gold Coast".
|
