RE: Another editorial change - objections anyone?

I am unhappy with 10.1, but will not stall the process.
Rob
-----Original message-----
From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)
Sent: Friday, September 1 2017, 1:50 pm
To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Re: Another editorial change - objections anyone?


Hi Folks,


I guess we did not reach consensus on my proposoed change.
I.e. I expect the spec to go into CR as is since we all "can live with
it" for now (unless there are further objections).

Luckily the discussion we have is not changing the API but largely
explanational.

While the spec is in the field for implementation and testing during CR,
we can continue to discuss and further refine the text.


Any feedback is welcome!

matthias


On 31.08.2017 22:06, Rob van Eijk wrote:
>     -----Original message-----
>     *From:* Roy T. Fielding
>     *Sent:* Thursday, August 31 2017, 7:09 pm(...)
> 
>     I object. Section 10.1 explains the rationale for section 4 (not 5.2).
>     Rewriting the note in that way entirely changes its meaning.
>     In any case, the protocol does have requirements on user agents
>     that apply absent an explicit preference by a user.  Failing to
>     adhere to those requirements will harm users *outside* the EU.
> 
>     ....Roy
> 
>