> -----Original Message----- > From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Montoya > Sent: Friday, 3 November 2006 9:24 AM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] Rotten Standardistas > > > There are one or two font-size fanatics that will accuse you of not > > respecting your users if you feel the need to set a font > size other than > > default. > > > > does that count? > > As an example of the kind of empty talk I'm tired of, yes. That > statement doesn't say "who" these people are or where they said it.
Christian, I think what you are suggesting could indeed end up in just a lot of finger pointing and turn this dicussion group very ugly. On the one hand I can understand why you want people to be more specific when they complain about standardistas. But really, why pick on what one particular person said? When Tony for example talks about "font-size fanatics" do we really need to know which person in particular he means? Don't we all know that he means those of us that strongly believe in the importance of setting relative font-sizes? A lot of the discussions in this group are not over the value of Web Standards (we all agree they are helpful), but over how rigidly they should be implemented. Some of us believe that the standard of relative font sizes is not just a guideline, but a rule that should not be broken (if possible). Others see the need for a certain amount of flexibility in the implementation of this standard. These are the two camps, we all know that they exist, why pinpoint individuals from each one of them? I think the problem is more the negative connotation of a term such as "standard fanatics", "font-size fanatics" or "standards zealots". Coming back to the original post: > On 11/2/06, Barney Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am a css-enthusiastic web designer who sees the value of > standards as > > a concept but does not necessarily bow to baseless trends, > and more and > > more I see potentially brilliant ideas get shot down in the > community > > because of 'standards' zealots who are very keen to > violently condemn > > certain methods of working because of very dim notions of > accessibility. I think what Barney was trying to express so vividly was that he disagreed with those of us who do not believe there may be cases in which we have to allow for a certain amount of flexibility in the implementation of web standards. Most of us know that there are members of this group who would never touch absolute font sizes, no matter what happens. We also know that there are members who "violently" oppose opening links in new windows. That's nothing to be ashamed of - just another opinion. Do we need to name names? I don't see the need for it. Maybe we can come up with more descriptive names for the two camps? Instead of "standard zealots" I recommend to call them "Aggressive, conservative standard bullies". On the other side we've got the "Can't-commit-to-nothing, undecisive, liberal guideline whimps". Some of us may feel to belong to one of the groups, others see themselves somewhere in between. But we all know what we are talking about, don't we? ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
