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 13:16:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjmG1BD4cfFGcCm5mkO-R3h=urzbU65seKaYk7XULKthw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr@cisco.com>
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, rfc-interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, spec-prod@w3.org
I see no reason to apologize

The author of the document is in this thread and could have clarified
the matter if he wanted to. In fact he is the one refusing to explain

I think what he was trying to do here was to assert that no decision
had been made so he could continue to claim support for his own scheme
which seems to have no interest here.

I don't see a need to cater to people who want to play silly games
like that. Lets argue the case on the merits rather than appeal to
irrelevant process claims.

My process is to focus on the proposals and ignore process.

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:
> On 5/9/12 10:11 AM, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
>> On May 9, 2012, at 9:01 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/83/materials.html#wg-rfcform
>>> - Just add UTF-8
>>> - Just add URLs
>>> - TeX input
>>> - PDF/A
>> FWIW, quoting just from the title of the slideware doesn't do justice to the
>> actual proposals. At least one of those was significantly different than its
>> title.
> I apologize for the gross simplification being misleading.  I encourage
> folks who want to understand what has been discussed to read the slides and
> the minutes.
> --
> Joe Hildebrand
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 17:16:39 UTC

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