Re: rel=type or rel=profile, issue 92

> There was no serious reading of the RFC6906 text at any point yet in
> this discussion.

I call shenanigans.
Just because you didn't observe it Henry, does not mean that it did not 
occur.

I had many of the same reactions you've had on my first read of the RFC. I 
re-read it several times, asked clarifying questions of the author, read 
other dependent materials, and brought the net to the WG.  I'm *fine* if 
the WG comes to a different conclusion, but do not for one instant even 
imply that I don't perform due diligence.


> I have not had anyone contradict my reading yet.

So the implicit conclusion then is everyone agrees with your reading?  Non 
sequitur, as you should well know.
Just as you point out in your responses that the Web is full of false 
statements, the world is also full of things that each of us personally 
disagrees with.  None of us has the time to fight them all, even just the 
subset we feel strongly about.


Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario