RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 7:52 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14)
> 
> 
> 
>  Simply quoting a  finding probably
> > doesn't help people understand the requirements/properties 
> that are met by findings and principles.
> 
> Huh?  As the finding summarizes the (ample) discussion that went on in
> www-tag, I think it's more than appropriate to point it out, 
> and indeed
> better than the alternative of rehashing past discussion.
> 
> We've been there, done that.  Let's move on.  Thanks.

With all respect to Mark and the TAG, I think this symptomatic of the
mindset that created the atmosphere in which the somewhat overblown response
to the  XLink/HLink occurred. Having over-reacted to that, I consider myself
an authority :-)

The TAG's role is to, uhh, "advise" WGs and not to act as the W3C Supreme
Court where final decisions are made.  A finding that is unclear is one that
it needs to be explained clearly, possibly pushed back on, possibly
reconsidered.  Assertions that the issue has been settled by the TAG once
and for all can easily be construed as "sorry, the court of last appeals has
spoken."   It's the perception of the XLink/HLink "unanimous opinion" as a
final ruling that generated a good bit of the emotion last week, and let's
not go THERE again.

As frustrating as it must be to rehash past discussion, questions such as
Micah Dubinko's are a clear sign that the resolution needs a clear summary
that one could point him to.  I've not seen very many W3C mail list threads
that end up that way ... they tend to go away when exhaustion sets in or a
more pressing issue comes up, not in a clean summary.

Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2002 08:30:17 UTC