On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:37 AM, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com> wrote: > > >> The answer appears to be that what you originally posted is not accurate >> at all and you were simply stating what you wished policy was. Thank you >> for clarifying. >> > > Are you saying I am lying about my opinion? My opinion is that referencing > a WHATWG is not legitimate. Some apparently opine otherwise. Both sides are > opinion. Do you think otherwise? > You stated that W3C process forbids referencing WHATWG documents. That is not accurate. It is your opinion that W3C process *should* ban such references, but that's an opinion on what should be and not a factual statement about what is. You are lying (or at least being deliberately misleading) when you state that the current state is already what you wish it were. - James
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 00:21:10 UTC