W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > June 2013

Re: STOP! Re: An IRC discussion with Alexandre Bertails re SSUE-19:

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 23:25:20 +0200
Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <83AA3F5A-AF27-4ED3-BA69-636FA32461D7@bblfish.net>
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>

On 6 Jun 2013, at 22:11, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone, 
> I would like to ask this discussion to stop. I really don't think this is leading anywhere and it's filling up everybody's mailbox. 

> There is no magic. In one way or another the client needs to figure out that it is dealing with an LDP server. This can be done at the HTTP level, at the RDF level, or possibly both. 
> We evidently have two different sets of people arguing for one way vs the other. As I said before, I think each way has its pros and cons. An objective discussion about the pros and cons would be useful but instead the discussion turns into a religious battle. This is not helpful. 

I don't think there are pros and cons at all. I am also tired about this discussion, as I have spent
an inconsiderate amount of time going into greater and greater detail with more and more official
spec references defending this position (as I was asked to do) 
The most detailed e-mail on this subject was put forward in the lates email I sent 

The conclusion drawn is in my view about as clear as 2+2=4. 

> I will send a separate note on how I see the problem and propose a possible solution to get us moving forward. In the meantime, if you want to keep rehashing the same points, please, do so somewhere else. 

I would love us to move on to another topic, as I myself have other things to do. But I would appreciate
a bit of thankfulness for the time I and others  spent clarifiying these issue. There is a time when discussion
comes to an end, and it is fine to make a statement that the arguments have been developed to their
logical conclsion, but your mail makes it sound like we have been wasting people's time. We did not bring
these issues up, we were asked to defend them, and we did so out of good will.

It is true that I can't imagine how I could go much futher in this argument without it becoming extreemly 
tedious in terms of formalisms. It's possible to do that, but it would certainly not be the best way 
for this group to spend its time.



> Thank you.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group

Social Web Architect
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 21:25:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:51 UTC