- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:44:46 +0000
- To: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, www-archive@w3.org
On 25 Feb 2009, at 22:33, Karl Dubost wrote: > Le 25 févr. 2009 ā 11:30, Bijan Parsia a écrit : >>> Björn had *valid critics* which led him to stop participating to >>> the *open source project of validators*. > > [ ] > >> I don't find you, from this exchange, to be a very reliable judge >> and reporter on this failure (that Björn reported on). The only way >> I can read your comments seems to directly contradict the public >> record. > > I agreed with you. no? see above. I *emphasized*. The critics about > the previous HTML WG have been recorded many time on mailing lists. Karl, maybe I just can't read what you write very well. Sorry about that. I'll try harder. I don't know what you mean by: """Ahaha. One of the most misunderstood message. One of this crisis where everyone rallied behind a few words for burning witches. Björn had valid critics which led him to stop participating to the *open source project of validators*. Björn is still actively participating to the CSS WG. ... Björn is complaining in this message that it is difficult to develop the validator because there is not much support from the WG. There was this idea floating at a point that validators should be taken care by WGs. It never happened. Resources. """ The first lie suggested to me that *I* had misunderstood the message and that you were offering a correction. The second line echoed a criticism you had of my idea of an Audit Board. The next two lines suggest an interpretation of the events. Neither sentence touched on the point of procedural problems with WGs. So, I guess I'm confused. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:45:19 UTC