W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2004

Re: "information resource"

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:54:09 -0500
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org, Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Message-Id: <1094673249.6086.296.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 14:29, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Only the document can speak for the document.

Right; so please quote it.

> I have been attacked before for seeming to speaking for the group.
> So I speak for myself -- but hope to help people understand the 
> document.

The time for speaking for yourself has come and gone; you agreed
to go to last call; that's largely an agreement to let the document
speak for itself, no?

> Maybe I should say "my understanding of what the document means is"

No; just quote from the document.

Or if you must, say "I suggest we change it to say...".

> When Norm says """The notion of "resources" and "information resources" 
> is, from my
> perspective, a compromise designed to allow two world views to achieve
> consensus."""  that suggets to me that he feels that the two world 
> views are incompatible and the document actually ducks the issue (like 
> the NS  document's famous "not a goal")

Yes, I'm afraid so.

> I would like to feel that the TAG in fact have a definition which we 
> can speak to, but apparently this is not the case and I have no way of 
> getting there.

Well, perhaps no easy way...

> Tim
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2004 19:53:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:46 GMT