- From: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:00:53 -0500
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>,'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'W3C WAI-XTECH' <wai-xtech@w3.org>,judy@w3c.org, "'Michael(tm) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>,'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, 'Maciej Stachowiak' <mjs@apple.com>
At 03:55 PM 8/2/2009 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote: >I truly and honestly believe that the vote is between "obsolete" and >"deprecated"(*), yet we have no less than three people saying that what >appears to me to be a very clear difference is something that they would >need more information on in order to express an opinion. I can't speak for anyone else, but my vote is not between whether @summary belongs in one undefined class or another. But it seems that the chair has positioned us so that we are going to vote between one document and another. That is truly unfortunate. As a vote between publishing one document vs another, the polity becomes extremely difficult. Honestly, I am flabbergasted by what is passing as process here. Everybody needs to take a step back and recognize that this has now entered into theater of the absurd. Forking HTML is the wrong thing to do, on the face of it. Please put an end to this insanity. Regards, Murray
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 21:00:21 UTC