Re: [xml-dev] XML-DEV list

["andrew welch" <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>]

On 9/28/06, Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
> From: andrew welch [mailto:andrew.j.welch@gmail.com]
>
> "All inbound-linking systems that scale out of some boundary share
> that characteristic without filtering controls."
>
> >I could quote some more but the entire paragraph makes for impossible
> >reading.  The points you make could change my opinion, you could be
> >saying absolute gold - I just can't distill it down into something
> >comprehensible.
>
> Spend some time in the library learning about second order systems.  In your
> mode of learning, you can only understand what you already know.  Or you
> might want to read some recent posts others are making about the silliness
> of basing opinions on Google ranking.  Here's a recent one:

I didn't base any opinion on Google ranking - I merely pasted in
"false eigen-index locking" to find out what you were going on about.
As it only returned _3_ results, none with those words in that order,
I got annoyed that I wasted my time trying to understand your point.

> >I guess its time I went back to quietly ignoring your posts
>
> Ok, just do it quietly.

Will do after this :)

> >> 2.  Adding more semantics to CSS bloats the browser.
> >> 3.  Bloating the browser may be a good tradeoff if authors are more
> >>   productive or interoperability improves.  The first is likely but the
> >>   second is not.
>
> >Thats subjective isn't it?
>
> And attaching linking semantics in a CSS declaration is somehow more
> objective?

*Yes* - of course it is.  Its tangible, Len.  Whether adding to CSS
bloats the browser or not is purely opinion.  Even if was possible to
measure "bloatiness", and having a simple linking functionality in CSS
somehow tipped a browser over the allowed amount of bloat, thats no
reason to not consider it.

Let me be clear I'm not arguing for or against links in CSS - I'm
arguing that your points were nonsense.  Sorry Len.