W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [minutes] Tuesday 13 January 2009

From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:46:49 +0100
Message-ID: <496E2509.1060802@eunet.no>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:58 UTC