W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: [rfc-i] IETF RFC format <-> W3C pubrules

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 11:16:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwggFShmzKpSs2hRvuLh9aYPOeDewsQjLQpZpNGqGeP2TQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Cc: rfc-interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, spec-prod@w3.org
This is now the second post where you have failed to mention what they
are or give a justification for continuing to consider them.

I have invariably found that people who claim that there is a really
good reason to take a course of action that they refuse to disclose
despite requests to do so have no real argument to make.

IETF process is that decisions are made on the Internet and not in
meetings. If people think those reasons are valid they should write
'em up and post here.

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> On May 9, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> I note that as is often the case when the blatantly obvious is said we
>> have disagreement by unresolved reference.
>> If you can't give a reason for a disagreement then you should probably
>> think a bit before posting and wait until you can state what the
>> disagreement is.
> Many proposals other than "HTML as the canonical form" were made at the IETF meeting in Paris. The fact that you were not there does not mean that they were not proposed.
> --Paul Hoffman

Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 16:12:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:19 UTC