W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-comments@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: transcoders bad

From: Terren Suydam <terren@singleclicksystems.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:09:37 -0400
Message-ID: <4898CFA1.6080905@singleclicksystems.com>
To: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
CC: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>, public-bpwg-comments@w3.org


Just to avoid any uncertainty, I'm not going anywhere until you answer 
my questions. If a spokesman for a transcoder can't make his case 
explicitly here, then he can't make it anywhere.

Sean Owen wrote:
> I moved this thread to wmlprogramming, can we continue there? will you
> approve my post?
> 
> Your comments are well registered, along with those of developers like
> me who think you are mistaken in some ways. It doesn't mean it will
> change just because you made a comment, and in fact, I don't see much
> support here. Assume #2 will happen.
> 
> How about leaving this list alone and continuing on wmlprogramming,
> your turf? You've said your peace.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no> wrote:
>>
>> I see two outcomes here:
>>
>> 1) the working group adopts developers' suggestions (imprimis User-Agent and
>> HTTPS preservation), and developers endorse CTGs.
>>
>> 2) the working group doesn't adopt developers suggestions: I will make sure
>> the mobile world knows that CTGs are NOT endorsed by developers and that W3C
>> is available to put its stamp on whatever document anyone with enough money
>> to seat at the W3C table wants.
>>
>> Personally, I would much prefer the first outcome.
> 
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 22:10:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:50 UTC