On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Mar 3, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > > - That being said, I think a reference to ISO/IEC 646 would be > > acceptable as well; this one is re-published by ECMA as ECMA-006, > > which is available online > > (<http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-006.htm>) > > Ian, would a reference to ISO/IEC 646 aka ECMA-006 be acceptable to you? I think debating this is a waste of our time and am not willing to get drawn into a discussion of the topic. > I am trying to determine if we need a call for consensus or a call for > counter-proposals as the next step. The next step should be to reprimand Julian for wasting our time and to dismiss the issue as a trivial matter not worth the electrons used to raise it. Humouring people who raise such trivial issues will only lead to an escalation of the level of time-wasting this group has to deal with. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 04:55:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:00 UTC