Re: collecting objections

pat hayes wrote:

> 
>> On 2003-09-27 04:27, "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  However, I have to say, looking at the email messages cited,
>>>  particularly from Patrick, it seems that in May, Patrick approved
>>>  strongly of the design where XML literals were syntactically
>>>  distinguished and not considered typed literals; but when I
>>>  re-suggested that we revert to this design in my 'wet fish' message
>>>  after Martin raised this issue - using, I now see, essentially the
>>>  same arguments that Patrick had used (typing and lang tags don't mix:
>>>  XML needs lang tags; ergo, XML literals are not typed) it was Patrick
>>>  who was most vehement in raising objections to it. Funny old world,
>>>  ennit?
>>
>>
>> I have supported numerous proposals over these many months, some
>> which I personally supported, and others which I could merely live
>> with, often motivated by the need to achieve *any* solution
>> which was minimally workable and sufficiently palatable to
>> all interested parties.
>>
>> I've busted my *ass* over the past two years on this, trying
>> hard to offer ideas and alternatives that meet the needs and
>> wants of various individuals and groups while still retaining
>> a generic, scalable, portable, and framework agnostic design.
> 
> 
> We all have thoroughly busted asses, my dear fellow. I am going to have 
> a ritual bonfire of the discs when this is all over and I feel able to 
> purge all the previous copies of all the documents I have written.
> 
>> I refuse to be treated as a scapegoat in this debacle.
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didnt mean to scapegoat you in particular, I was just remarking 
> on a change of heart I hadnt noticed previously.
> 
>> Be cautious in what you infer. Be very cautious, Pat.
> 
> 
> No inference intended. Like Jeremy, and I am sure yourself, I am now 
> totally persuaded by the consensus of my colleagues and will never again 
> differ from any of them on any matter.
> 


This consensus-building sometimes gets a bit tedious though.  It'd 
perhaps be easier if we cultivated what Churchill called the main 
qualification for political office:  "the ability to foretell what is 
going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year...and 
afterwards to explain why it didn't happen."

--Frank

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 12:59:24 UTC