burden of proof (was Re: [uf-dev] Suggested new parsing rule for alt text)

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <C2293C6B.8AB1B%tantek at cs.stanford.edu>, Tantek Çelik 
<tantek at cs.stanford.edu> writes

>> Your "very little benefit" is hypothetical and unfounded.
>
>Andy, while I appreciate the swift calling of "hypothetical", you have 
>the burden of proof backwards.
>
>The burden of proof is on any new parsing rules to demonstrate real 
>world benefits using real world examples, not on Brian nor anyone else 
>to "prove" very little benefit.
>
>That is, new proposals/rules have "very little benefit" (and potential 
>cost), until proven otherwise (that they *have* a benefit,

I accept that. I thought my Wikipedia example provided such evidence - 
and my wider reference to CMSs a use case.

> and *can be* implemented easily and interoperably).

I don't accept that. I can't prove that something can be easily and 
interpretably implemented; surely it is for other people to show (if 
indeed it is the case) that it cannot.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
                  <http://www.pigsonthewing.org.uk/uFsig/>

                     Welcome to the world's longest week!