- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:10:31 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 15.03.2011 17:07, Sam Ruby wrote: > 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. So do you consider the reference to be non-normative? >>> === 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". What do you mean by "merits consideration"? What's the next step here? Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 16:11:10 UTC