- From: Terren Suydam <terren@singleclicksystems.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:09:37 -0400
- To: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
- CC: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>, public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
Just to avoid any uncertainty, I'm not going anywhere until you answer my questions. If a spokesman for a transcoder can't make his case explicitly here, then he can't make it anywhere. Sean Owen wrote: > I moved this thread to wmlprogramming, can we continue there? will you > approve my post? > > Your comments are well registered, along with those of developers like > me who think you are mistaken in some ways. It doesn't mean it will > change just because you made a comment, and in fact, I don't see much > support here. Assume #2 will happen. > > How about leaving this list alone and continuing on wmlprogramming, > your turf? You've said your peace. > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no> wrote: >> >> I see two outcomes here: >> >> 1) the working group adopts developers' suggestions (imprimis User-Agent and >> HTTPS preservation), and developers endorse CTGs. >> >> 2) the working group doesn't adopt developers suggestions: I will make sure >> the mobile world knows that CTGs are NOT endorsed by developers and that W3C >> is available to put its stamp on whatever document anyone with enough money >> to seat at the W3C table wants. >> >> Personally, I would much prefer the first outcome. >
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 22:10:19 UTC