Oh, of course. And you personally verified their licensure, no doubt. But the point is that there is licensure for electricians, who have maintained enough of

Oh, of course. And you personally verified their licensure, no doubt. But the point is that there is licensure for electricians, who have maintained enough of a guild to defend the value - semantic, yes, but ultimately economic - of the term. That title matters the way this author wants "web developer" to, but "web developer" hasn't, doesn't, and never will again, and that's certainly not going to change in consequence of this author's fundamental misapprehension of genericization as a concept - not the legal principle with respect to trademark, but the underlying human behavior by whose recognition the establishment of that principle was informed. edit: It doesn't improve the argument, either, to footnote in a refusal to defend it on its basis. If the claim holds for a role demanding no formal qualification, why defend it on the back of a comparison with a role which does so require? If the argument is that "web developer" should require qualification, why not say so outright? - preferably in about 2005, when it last would have had a chance to matter. Frankly I'm amazed this guy has been making a go of it for so long, but I guess he must have had to be a lot hungrier, to have stayed in a line I gave up now nearly 15 years ago for want of seeing any future there.