Re: ISSUE-161: Discussion of semantics and alternatives to "!" (was: Batch closing)

Roy,

I entirely fail to see how the semantics of a status indicator "cannot be addressed."  Could you please explain your concern?

Thanks,
Jonathan


On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> > On 12/04/2013 17:03, David Wainberg wrote:
> > > Hi Matthias,
> > > 
> > > On 161, the "!" signal, while we do seem to have consensus on the signal, I do not believe we have reached consensus on the precise meaning or the language describing it in the spec. Therefore, the issue should remain open.
> > > 
> > > -David
> 
> I believe that David's concerns have been fully addressed in the
> editors' draft. Jonathan's have not because they cannot be
> addressed in a protocol (only in some legal or regulatory framework
> which is not our concern).
> 
> ....Roy