- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:07:02 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/15/2011 11:41 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 15.03.2011 16:13, Sam Ruby wrote: >> ... >> This leaves us with two strong and rather orthogonal objections. We >> then turned to look at what the practical implications would be if each >> were adopted. Despite not being a "definition", we found no statement >> to the effect that RFC 1345 is not useful for the purpose of an >> informative reference. We did find statements that referencing a >> for-pay spec would cause less people to actually make use of the >> reference. >> ... > > So do you consider the reference to be non-normative? In that case, a > bug should be raised to mark it as such. The chairs will not interfere with any bugs that can be resolved amicably within the Working Group. >> === Arguments not considered: >> ... >> While it was not found to be the strongest objection, the fact that the >> IETF no longer considers this RFC to be official is a serious issue is a >> strong objection that merits consideration by the Working Group. >> ... > > ...meaning what? Meaning, as stated in the decision, that the following arguments were not considered: "this whole issue is a giant waste of time", "editor's discretion", "purely editorial", and that "this became an issue at all is also insane". > Best regards, Julian - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 16:07:34 UTC