- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:55:09 +0100
- To: "Richard Schwerdtfeger" <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "HTMLWG WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "XHTML2 WG" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
Rich, > Sorry, I meant xhtml 2 working goup. There is no "xhtml working group." BTW if you click the > link to XHTML on the W3C web site it goes the the XHTML 2 working group. It was Anne who was making the distinction between the "XHTML WG" and the "XHTML 2 WG", not me; I used the term "XHTML WG" and he rather astutely pointed out that there was no such thing. > I have to say I think you are going a bit overboard. There isn't much I can say to that...I don't think I am. :) > We have bigger problems here than the semantics of the subject line. You surely don't think that this about the semantics of the subject line, Richard. This is about many things, but that is not one of them. The subject line was mentioned because it was phrased to imply that a meeting had taken place which involved an exchange of views from various 'communities'. That is not what happened, and I didn't want people to be misled into thinking it had. As to having "bigger problems", we definitely agree there. :) I'm having trouble seeing how this will be resolved in any useful way though, given the parameters that have been set by the W3C. This is as much about having a clear 'vision' as it is about producing a technical solution. Regards, Mark -- Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com standards. innovation.
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 21:55:17 UTC