Re: New file format names

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 20:56 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Thomas Lord<> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 19:59 -0500, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> >> This makes it clear that Hakon's fears revolve essentially around
> >> marketing - he fears that if a format named EOT-Lite is standardized,
> >
> > It's clear in plain english that while
> > HÃ¥kon has made reference to the *name*
> > of EOTL to help explain his point, his
> > reserve is not based simply on the name.
> So, once again, "If you don't know, I won't tell you.".  I see.

No, it's not that at all.   It's my estimation
of your contribution on this list at this time.
Let's take it off list if you like, for a few
days, and I can extend my patience there a bit.
I've seen you say things here and there that 
make me suspect this could well be an anomaly.
But the actual discussion your raising here
on the list is (again, perhaps quite accidentally)
beyond silly.  Do be in touch,
if you like.

> > The mere fact you are going on as if
> > his objection were simply about the name
> > - and not being corrected by any EOT*
> > advocate - helps to illustrate just how
> > badly the EOT* effort has failed: how
> > disingenuous the whole thing is.
> Now I, and the format as a whole, am damned by silence.  

Let's (try, for a finite period of time, to) 
sort it out off list if that is how you feel.


> It is
> apparently impossible that everyone who's been monitoring the list
> over the last couple of hours agrees with me.
> ~TJ

Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 02:09:18 UTC