- From: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
- Date: 16 Apr 2013 13:23:34 +0200
- To: "David Singer" <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
David Singer: > Which is probably why they link directly to the document > on the W3C's site that is clearly labeled as an editor's > draft of specification. I doubt that most readers of the Netflix blog follow the link to read a "specification". > I don't see anywhere where there is a claim that the document is > 'final'. Correct. As I wrote: The claim on the blog is that the document is a "W3C specification". Cheers, Andreas -- BTW: An anecdote (which is not meant as a comparison with any members of these W3C lists). A few years ago I have seen a document written by a lawyer who claimed that a certain factual statement was contained in a certain paragraph of a special expensive legal book. It turned out that the paragraph contained the *exact* opposite factual statement. In that case the intended audience was one person: a judge. The expectation of the lawyer obviously was that neither the judge nor myself had access to the book to verify that factual statement. The lie did not help the lawyer and his client (the German subsidiary of The SCO Group, Inc.).
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 21:20:43 UTC