Re: ACTION-255: Work on financial reporting text as alternative to legal requirements

Hi Rigo - 

I'm not sure the fact that you're referring to a law as stupid (as opposed
to the body creating the law) makes your comments any more appropriate.
And I may not have made this clear enough, but its not a law - rather, its
a non-legal code of conduct.

Jeff and others have made repeated requests for industry to share
specifics on how industry operates. Its sort of frustrating that my
attempts to provide an example have been met with such ridicule.

But its also unproductive for us to continue sniping on this issue. My
apologies to the rest of the WG for contributing to the pollution of your
inboxes - this is the last you'll hear from me on this subject.

Nick, I'll get back to you re: your email in the next day or so.

Thanks.

-a





On 9/27/12 4:09 AM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:

>Alan, 
>
>as you are a lawyer too, I expect that you can distinguish between
>the assertion about stupid laws and the assertion about stupid
>people. I admit the first while you transgress into the latter.
>
>Sometimes, even lobbyist are lobbying for a good cause. Here is your
>occasion! I know that lawmakers would love to recompartimentalize
>the Web and the Internet into national controlled information spaces
>that align well with their laws. All would be so simple and clean.
>Unfortunately, ....
>
>Rigo
>
>On Wednesday 26 September 2012 17:45:02 Alan Chapell wrote:
>> I'll be sure to communicate to the PCMCP that the official
>> position coming from the General Counsel of the W3C is that they
>> are stupid (:
>
>

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 15:56:12 UTC