- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 10:31:27 -0400
- To: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
- CC: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 04/11/2011 09:53 AM, Kurt Cagle wrote: > I had not quite intended to restart the thread here, and my apologies to > the chairs. > > However, I also did wish to clarify a comment: [snip] > > Please note, I'm not trying to stimulate any further debate here, Please stop. Operationally, there is no difference between everybody clarifying comments, and "ensur[ing] that only correct information is allowed to promulgate" and a discussion. Unless anybody has any ADDITIONAL types of new information, repeating endlessly statements purporting to re-clarify or re-refute is not constructive. Furthermore, this thread restarted when James Graham outlined a new proposal that retained a prefixes syntax, it just interpreted them differently, in a way that at least one consumer of RDFa appears to currently implement. At this point, if people would like to see this issue reopened, show us some evidence. Reanalyzing data that was readily available during the last year and a half isn't new evidence. Identifying that deployed software has bugs is new new information. If anybody believes that these deviations aren't bugs but are intentional, then show us some evidence of that. Alternately, show us massive amount of content that does depend on these bugs. - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 11 April 2011 14:31:59 UTC