- From: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:36:56 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
On 6/25/09 3:13 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > Aesthetic reasons, different priorities (e.g. whether migration to and > from XML is desireable), opinions based on circumstancial evidence that > that don't have as much evidence as other things (e.g. guesses as to the > psychological effect on authors of including certain features), etc. I > always defer to the argument that is based on the strongest reasoning or > research; sometimes, that just doesn't happen to match what I would like, > because I can't argue my case as convincingly as other cases. > These are things you don't like. You put up with them because people have made (in your opinion) cogent arguments for their inclusion. Things you disagree with don't make it in the spec. I suppose it's possible to play word games with the definition of "disagreement", but the spec text provides a concrete delimiter. - Rob
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 22:37:37 UTC