On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 08:58:07PM +0000, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > > > > On 25 Jun 2019, at 22:53, André Pönitz <apoen...@t-online.de> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 07:59:16PM +0000, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > >>> On 25 Jun 2019, at 21:30, Konrad Rosenbaum <kon...@silmor.de> wrote: > >>> > >>> Pardon my lingo, > >> > >> You should be able to communicate your points without that kind of lingo. > >> Try > >> better. > >> > >>> It is documentation for developers for crying out loud! Its purpose is > >>> not to > >>> win any design prices, but to educate the developers. > >> > >> Please stop putting up straw-men, it’s not helping this discussion at all. > > > > I find it actually quite helpful and to the point. > > Huh? You find straw-men helpful and to the point?
Depends on circumstances, but generally, yes. I assume the straw-men here is the insinuated intention to "win a design price", that's of course not the real intention, that was rather about being able to specify table background by CSS and table borders. However, the straw-men here is only the motivation, the actual technical effect on resource consumption and locking out users is the same. If one considers "locking out user for winning a design price" an outrageously bad deal, the straw-men arguments helps to understand that while "be able to use CSS for styling for table layouts at the price of locking out users" is not _exactly_ the same, it is still a _really bad_ deal. So I think the straw-men argument here indeed helps to get the order of magnitudes of gain and pain right. Without such "help" and unavailability of other measures humans tend to simply use the _number_ of presented arguments as a measure of their weight, i.e. "CSS for table background" counts the same (namely "one argument") as "locking out users". And when "draws table borders" is added, that's already a clear 2:1 win. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
