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 13:28:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4D7FA1B8.3090009@intertwingly.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/15/2011 12:10 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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?

All I will say is that the Chairs believe that the Group has duly 
considered the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is possible 
and reasonable, and that the group SHOULD move on.

If you wish to pursue this further, I suggest that you present new 
information as described by the decision, and accompany this information 
with a Change Proposal.  I also encourage you to review the objections 
that were made to the previous proposal and to work with the individuals 
that made those objections.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 17:28:57 GMT

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