- From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:31:34 +0100
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
"Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com> wrote: > > So the part of me is responsible for earning a salary doesn't care, > but the part of me that wants the world to be a better place cares > deeply (:-). Ah, didn't reckon on that schizophrenia thing. > I suggest that no DAV:resourcetype values are needed for the > DeltaV protocol extensions, Agreed. > but that I am willing to add any > set of (well-defined! :-) values on which the working group can > reach consensus. > > So from now on, I will only be asking for clarification on > the semantics of proposed new DAV:resourcetype values, rather > than repeating why I'm against adding any at all (:-). Once the "reasoned debate" has concluded it can drift off into the archives. Clearly this debate falls far short of RFC2026's description of a basis for dispute which is "(a) [an individual's] own views have not been adequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the Working Group has made an incorrect technical choice which places the quality and/or integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant jeopardy" Tim
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 12:32:15 UTC