Re: publishing new WD of URL spec

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:20 AM, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

No I didn't. Reread what I said:

"WHATWG specs are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs. Their IPR
status is indeterminate and they do not follow a consensus process."


> That is not accurate.
>

It is hard to have a conversation with you if you don't read what I say,
and instead put words in my mouth.


> It is your opinion that W3C process *should* ban such references,
>

No, I didn't say that either. Where are you coming up with this stuff?? I
said "are not legitimate for reference by W3C specs". I didn't say they
should be banned. I said I thought such a reference was legitimate. I can
imagine circumstances where I might agree to allow a reference to a
document that I believe illegitimate.


> but that's an opinion on what should be and not a factual statement about
> what is.
>

I didn't make any statement of fact, I cleary stated my opinion.


> You are lying (or at least being deliberately misleading) when you state
> that the current state is already what you wish it were.
>

James, you are now initiating an ad hominem attack on my statements of
opinion. I suggest you back off, go read what I really said, and then
consider apologizing to this ML for behaving badly.


>
> - James
>