W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2003

Re: argument from authority considered pointless

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 18:44:51 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <r01050400-1023-8005C4DA2E6311D7AFB80003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>

fielding@apache.org (Roy T. Fielding) writes:
>The myth that such disconnects occur has been described several times
>already and we've already answered that myth a dozen times or more,
>so your claims of not being answered are typical of the quality of
>your posts.  Dan already asked you and the group, politely, to suggest
>changes or shut up.  It is obvious that you don't respect our policies,
>so I am telling you to shut up or go away.

Thank you for making clear how little you value my opinion.  I will keep
that in mind for future conversations.

>If you have a suggestion for a change to the Web Architecture document
>produced by the TAG, then make it explicitly and without rehashing old
>arguments.  If you have a suggestion for a change to 2396, then make it
>on the uri@w3.org mailing list and I will add it to the issues list
>(assuming it isn't already there).  I refuse to debate that standard
>in more than one forum because doing so disenfranchises the IETF folks.
>If you have suggestions for corrections to RFC 2616, then I suggest you
>send them to the ietf-http-wg@w3.org mailing list.

I don't believe that changes to 2396 or 2616 are necessary.  I simply
ask that the TAG read the text they contain and respect the statements
they make.  I particularly recommend Section 4.1 of RFC 2396 and Section
3.2.2 of RFC 2616.  I've made specific comments on the Web Architecture
document here in the past, particularly regarding its blurring of URIs
and URI references, and see no need to waste the TAG's time by repeating
those comments here.

As far as participating in RFC 2396, it's difficult to imagine doing
that if the quality of the conversation resembles the quality of this
conversation.  I've enjoyed working in IETF processes in the past and
look forward to doing so again, but your leading participation on RFC
2396 suggests quite plainly to me that my participation cannot hope to
be fruitful.

>Go ahead, just so long as you do so in some other forum.  I don't care
>how you waste your own time, only how it is wasting ours.

I'm afraid you're wasting the time of an awful lot of people.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 18:44:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:15 GMT