- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:41:37 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 15.03.2011 16:13, Sam Ruby wrote: > ... > This leaves us with two strong and rather orthogonal objections. We > then turned to look at what the practical implications would be if each > were adopted. Despite not being a "definition", we found no statement > to the effect that RFC 1345 is not useful for the purpose of an > informative reference. We did find statements that referencing a > for-pay spec would cause less people to actually make use of the > reference. > ... So do you consider the reference to be non-normative? In that case, a bug should be raised to mark it as such. > === Arguments not considered: > ... > While it was not found to be the strongest objection, the fact that the > IETF no longer considers this RFC to be official is a serious issue is a > strong objection that merits consideration by the Working Group. > ... ...meaning what? Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 15:42:14 UTC