- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:07:42 -0500
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu (Michael Kifer)
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Gary Hallmark <GARY.HALLMARK@oracle.com>, W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> Unfortunately, you continue to stick with hand-waving arguments rather than
> trying to make what you want to achieve precise.
I find
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Dec/0072.html
precise for its length. Bijan's version
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Dec/0089.html
is more detailed and very clear. Gary's and Paul's verious messages
were clear to me as well, to me. (FWIW, I find your use of the term
"hand-waving" there offensive.)
What's so hand-waving about saying "the vendors don't want to set the
bar that high?"
> In particular, you didn't
> address my attempts at defining what you call "conformance" more precisely
> and also Frank's arguments.
Perhaps I missed them, although I think I read everything in this
thread. Pointer?
(Your putting scare-quotes around the word "conformance" is odd, and
also kind of offensive. I don't think I'm using it in some private way.
I'm using it, as best I can, in conformance :-) with the far-too-long
W3C Recommendation on the subject [1].)
-- Sandro
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#conformance-clause
Received on Monday, 18 December 2006 16:08:50 UTC