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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:10:31 +0100
Message-ID: <4D7F8F77.5060602@gmx.de>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 15.03.2011 17:07, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 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.

So do you consider the reference to be non-normative?

>>> === 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".

What do you mean by "merits consideration"? What's the next step here?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 16:11:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:26 GMT