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

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <C2295B35.8AB62%tantek at cs.stanford.edu>, Tantek Çelik
<tantek at cs.stanford.edu> writes

>On 3/23/07 8:54 AM, "Andy Mabbett" <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

>>> 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
>> interoperably implemented;
>
>Your not being able to prove it is insufficient reason to not accept the
>burden of proof.

I wasn't preferring to personal inability, but to logical impossibility.

>Rather, don't assume that you personally have to prove the proposal as such,
>but ask for help.

I did. I asked:

        Can anyone foresee any problems with that?

>> surely it is for other people to show (if
>> indeed it is the case) that it cannot.
>
>Similar to the burden of proof explanation above, it is not others'
>responsibility to prove a negative.

Nobody is asking them to prove a negative; quite the reverse.

>  The assumption is that something is
>hard to implement and non-interoperable until proven otherwise by someone
>actually easily building an implementation, and someone else building
>another implementation that interoperates with the first.

We can never prove complete interoperability; we can only find cases
failure to work interoperably.

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

                    Welcome to the world's longest week!