- From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 13:16:09 -0400
- To: Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr@cisco.com>
- Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, rfc-interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, spec-prod@w3.org
I see no reason to apologize The author of the document is in this thread and could have clarified the matter if he wanted to. In fact he is the one refusing to explain himself. I think what he was trying to do here was to assert that no decision had been made so he could continue to claim support for his own scheme which seems to have no interest here. I don't see a need to cater to people who want to play silly games like that. Lets argue the case on the merits rather than appeal to irrelevant process claims. My process is to focus on the proposals and ignore process. On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote: > On 5/9/12 10:11 AM, "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote: > >> On May 9, 2012, at 9:01 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote: >> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/83/materials.html#wg-rfcform >>> >>> - Just add UTF-8 >>> - Just add URLs >>> - TeX input >>> - PDF/A >> >> FWIW, quoting just from the title of the slideware doesn't do justice to the >> actual proposals. At least one of those was significantly different than its >> title. > > I apologize for the gross simplification being misleading. I encourage > folks who want to understand what has been discussed to read the slides and > the minutes. > > -- > Joe Hildebrand > > _______________________________________________ > rfc-interest mailing list > rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 17:16:39 UTC