This is asbjornu's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following asbjornu's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Oslo, Norway
Web, music and whisky lover
Recent Activity
Christophe, you can join the W3C WG as an individual (as I did).
Toggle Commented Nov 16, 2012 on The Future of Markdown at Coding Horror
@Evan Plaice, the problem with the stagnation of HTML was of the existing WG in place and its decision to deprecate HTML altogether in place of XHTML. WHATWG was created to continue the development of HTML since there was no way to start that initiative from within W3C. Since there is no existing Markdown WG in W3C, I don't think it faces the same problems as HTML did 8 years ago. While I agree with Anne van Kesteren's criticism of the W3C Process, I think it mainly boils down to how good the chairs and editors of the WG are. If we go the IETF route, those chairs and editors are even more important (from my experience being involved in RFC 4287 and 5023 as well as HTML5); just look at the mess that is OAuth 2.0. I'm not sure that creating an ad-hoc standardization effort without the backing of an existing organization is such a good idea either; microformats isn't in a much better shape than HTML was 8 years ago. I'm not saying this is easy, I'm just saying it might be easier if we go with an organization that at least have a track record (although not perfect) than no organization at all.
Toggle Commented Nov 8, 2012 on The Future of Markdown at Coding Horror
@Andy Dent, you can choose "No Affiliation", which means you're only representing yourself. @Evan Plaice, your arguments against standardizing Markdown could be made against standardizing HTML 20 years ago too. Now that we have a proposed W3C Working Group to handle the standardization of the Markdown language, I believe that's the best way forward.
Toggle Commented Nov 7, 2012 on The Future of Markdown at Coding Horror
This is a great initiative and I have huge hopes for this going forward. But I want to make one recommendation: Don't write a parser. Instead, base the standard on a parser-generator-language, like that of ANTLR, so code can be generated from this standard language to whatever programming language or platform people want to parse Markdown in. Unless you're planning on implementing the parser in the 17 different languages supported by ANTRL out of the box, defining the MArkdown language in ANTLR and letting it generate parsers for these 17 languages makes a hell of a lot sense. Please consider it. Hard.
Toggle Commented Oct 30, 2012 on The Future of Markdown at Coding Horror
Can you please watch Teaching kids real math with computers and go through your arguments against learning programming again? Are the arguments still valid or does Conrad Wolfram have a point? If programming can make math more relevant and at the same time make every child in the world able to make the most out of their (increasingly) digital environments, isn't that something we should try to achieve? Doesn't the mere idea make you ecstatic (like me)?
Toggle Commented May 22, 2012 on Please Don't Learn to Code at Coding Horror
Seeing that nothing has changed in CSL since January 2009, I'd say CSL fits the slow release cycles of the .NET framework like a glove. Why shouldn't the .NET framework contain a service locator anyway? Thus, my recommendation is to shove CSL into System.ComponentModel.ServiceLocation.dll and ship it with the .NET framework. Do it as a service pack to .NET 4.0, like you did with System.Web.Routing.dll for .NET 3.5. Then, the Microsoft.Practices.ServiceLocation.dll won't be needed by anyone, since it's obsoleted by the ServiceLocation class in the .NET framework. I think it's wrong of MVC to ship its own implementation of CSL, since that's not what everyone is using, so it won't provide any interoperability with all the frameworks that have a dependency on CSL. It's also highly unlikely that all the CSL dependencies are going to be rewritten for MVC, since that's -- well -- MVC specific (which CSL isn't). No, include it in the framework. That's the only good solution imho.
1 reply
I agree, this centralization isn't good for the web. I've despised services like TinyURL for years, because of this very reason. People tend to just drop URIs in e-mails and IM's without further explanation as well, and when obscured through a service like TinyURL, it's impossible to do a little pre-emptive analysis of what the heck the URL might lead to, because the original URL is ... obscured. The Google juice goes to the original URIs, though. The TinyURL's all do permanent redirects (HTTP 301) to the original URI and a search for indexed pages on ( ) shows that Google doesn't have any actual TinyURLs indexed at all.
Toggle Commented Nov 26, 2007 on The Decentralization Dance at
1 reply