- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 07:45:21 -0500
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
On 12/07/2014 11:18 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > On 2014/12/06 07:38, Sam Ruby wrote: >> On 12/05/2014 03:49 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >>> If you want a “yes, we’re aware of it” response, I think you’ve >>> already got it, but you’re more than welcome to ask for it in official >>> form. > >> What I am trying to do is distinguish between: >> >> 1) I've read the draft, I approve of it, and therefore I have no >> comments. >> >> 2) I've not read the draft, and therefore I have no comments. > > I think such statements are rather easy to make for individuals, but not > for IETF (nor for that matter for the W3C or even the WHATWG). > >> Despite the fact that there is no active WG within the IETF working on >> this, I would have thought that this would be a topic of significant >> interest to the broader IETF community. > > This is all true. The problem is that this interest is spread out very > very thinly. Summing up every splitter of interest will add up to > significant interest, but the people who are actually interested enough > to read the document and comment are few and far between. I've met in person with Area Directors. I've asking for the W3C/IETF liaisons to make this happen. I've outlined the beginnings of a problem statement. I've been very publicly working on a specification. I've documented significant differences between implementations. If there are people who want to help, I'm willing to work with them. The one thing I am not intending to do is to stop. > Regards, Martin. - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 8 December 2014 12:46:11 UTC