W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-101 us-ascii-ref

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:07:02 -0400
Message-ID: <4D7F8EA6.3020002@intertwingly.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/15/2011 11:41 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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.

The chairs will not interfere with any bugs that can be resolved 
amicably within the Working Group.

>> === 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?

Meaning, as stated in the decision, that the following arguments were 
not considered: "this whole issue is a giant waste of time", "editor's 
discretion", "purely editorial", and that "this became an issue at all 
is also insane".

> Best regards, Julian

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 16:07:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:23 UTC