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

Re: Please keep it clean Re: Clarifying what a URL identifies (Four Uses of a URL)

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:34:30 -0800
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <94B6DD3E-2E83-11D7-BEAC-000393753936@apache.org>

Tim, I'd welcome you to take the high road and moderate the comments
on this list, and in particular to ask that the agenda be respected.

I remained silent on this issue in spite of several attacks
on both my work as an editor and my comprehension of the
specifications that I wrote, and despite the fact that nobody ever
answers the question of what is broken in the Semantic Web that
requires as-yet-to-be-specified changes.  This isn't my question --
it is the question the TAG needs answered before it makes sense to
continue the discussion.  If you want to moderate the discussion,
then I suggest you put a stop to the ceaseless baiting of me that
has taken place every time the issue comes up and before I even
participate in the discussion.

In any case, that is separate from anyone, regardless of how
independent their opinions may be, from coming into this forum
and speculating as to why you and I may have some disagreement.
I do not appreciate it, nor will I remain silent when it occurs.
At the very least, I expect W3C folks to make the argument by example
of running code, not by opinion or speculation about what we may have
been thinking when writing a specification.  Then at least I can give
counter-examples (rather than simply responding from an "authority"
position since I am the only one who knows what I was thinking)
and describe how the interface works.  That is what I have done in
response to the messages of substance, and what Tim Bray has tried
to do several times over.  At this point it is too frustrating.

Meanwhile, you have not responded to any of my messages that address
the issue, aside from writing the HTML page responding to everything
at once, so I still have no concrete notion as to what we might
actually disagree about.  I'd appreciate it if people who engage in
private conversations with either one of us wouldn't presume a
disagreement exists and use that to justify their actions.  I'd
appreciate it even more if we could reduce the traffic on this list
to the point where you and I could both participate on it with
regularity rather than once in a blue moon.

Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 22:33:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:36 UTC