Re: publishing new WD of URL spec

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:20 AM, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:37 AM, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The answer appears to be that what you originally posted is not
>>>> accurate at all and you were simply stating what you wished policy was.
>>>>  Thank you for clarifying.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying I am lying about my opinion? My opinion is that
>>> referencing a WHATWG is not legitimate. Some apparently opine otherwise.
>>> Both sides are opinion. Do you think otherwise?
>>>
>>
>> You stated that W3C process forbids referencing WHATWG  documents.
>>
>
> No I didn't. Reread what I said:
>
> "WHATWG specs are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs. Their IPR
> status is indeterminate and they do not follow a consensus process."
>
>
>> That is not accurate.
>>
>
> It is hard to have a conversation with you if you don't read what I say,
> and instead put words in my mouth.
>
>
>> It is your opinion that W3C process *should* ban such references,
>>
>
> No, I didn't say that either. Where are you coming up with this stuff?? I
> said "are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs". I didn't say they
> should be banned. I said I thought such a reference was legitimate.
>

s/was legitimate/was not legitimate/


> I can imagine circumstances where I might agree to allow a reference to a
> document that I believe illegitimate.
>
>
>> but that's an opinion on what should be and not a factual statement about
>> what is.
>>
>
> I didn't make any statement of fact, I cleary stated my opinion.
>
>
>> You are lying (or at least being deliberately misleading) when you state
>> that the current state is already what you wish it were.
>>
>
> James, you are now initiating an ad hominem attack on my statements of
> opinion. I suggest you back off, go read what I really said, and then
> consider apologizing to this ML for behaving badly.
>
>
>>
>> - James
>>
>
>