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

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-56 urls-webarch

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:56:22 +0100
Message-ID: <4D8BCC16.7000101@lachy.id.au>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 2011-03-19 15:10, Sam Ruby wrote:
> == Arguments not considered
>
> The following arguments expressed in the survey were not considered for
> the reason specified:
>
> Additionally, it is asserted that this proposal contains "unjustified
> changes, inconsistencies, unimplementable requirements and is overall
> inappropriate for use in the specification."
>
> This argument is entirely lacking in specifics.

That was quoted from the summary of my arguments. As I clearly stated, 
the supporting rationale was given in the document I linked to.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Jun/att-0072/Content-Language.html

At several points throughout that, it indicates sections that were 
inconsistent, unjustified, or which lacked implementation requirements.

Anyway, it doesn't matter much. I'm pleased with the outcome of this issue.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2011 22:56:56 GMT

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