- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 07:46:19 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/15/2011 01:39 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 15.03.2011 18:28, Sam Ruby wrote: >> On 03/15/2011 12:10 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> 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? >> >> All I will say is that the Chairs believe that the Group has duly >> considered the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is possible >> and reasonable, and that the group SHOULD move on. >> >> If you wish to pursue this further, I suggest that you present new >> information as described by the decision, and accompany this information >> with a Change Proposal. I also encourage you to review the objections >> that were made to the previous proposal and to work with the individuals >> that made those objections. > > Sam, > > the chair decision seems to be based on the assumption that the > reference isn't normative, and thus RFC 1345 is "good enough". I'm > *just* trying to understand the decision, because understanding it > properly is necessary to decide what to do next. The quote "good enough" appears nowhere in the decision. I repeat: if you wish to pursue this further, I suggest that you present new information as described by the decision, and accompany this information with a Change Proposal. I also encourage you to review the objections that were made to the previous proposal and to work with the individuals that made those objections. Once we have an actual Change Proposal in hand, we can discuss this further. Until then, the Chairs believe that the Group has duly considered the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is possible and reasonable, and that the group SHOULD move on. > Best regards, Julian - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 11:46:53 UTC