- From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:46:49 +0100
- To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Tom Hume wrote: > > Err, except when they don't. Like in the case we're talking about > here, when the group agreed with the two developers. Or the example I > gave last time you made this false assertion: > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/message/29346 > > I'll happily to post some tin-foil to you, if you're running short... What do you want to prove with this? . Yes, CTG has worked around the fact that WML is broken by "no-transcode" and yes this was suggested by developers, but this does not mean that CTWG has consistently ruled against content owners in 99% of the cases, not coincidentally you keep referring from this same thing over and over again. My point fully stands. Luca
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 17:47:31 UTC