Re: TAG Comments on XHTML 2.0 and HLink

Hash: SHA1

/ "Champion, Mike" <> was heard to say:
| The problem is that there are some people who feel that the process was
| violated.

This one bothers me. The TAG was asked to form an opinion about an
issue. We did so. We talked long and hard and with considerable agony
about the issue. And (miraculously to me) we reached a position where
we all agreed.

I accepted the action to write a message telling the world what that
opinion was. I did so. We read it. We agreed to send it. I sent it.

The opinion of the TAG is just that, an opinion. I don't feel (and I
don't believe anyone on the TAG feels) that our opinion commands
anyone to do anything. We don't have any authority to tell anyone what
to do.

| That set a bad tone, IMHO.  The TAG message didn't come across (to me, and
| judging from my private correspondence this morning, to lots of other
| people) as an invitation to feedback and discussion, but a pronoucement ex
| cathedra.  
| Some humble pie consumption by all parties would probably help get the
| technical issues here back on the table.  I'll take back the "legislating
| the value of pi" slur and the reference to "foolish consistency" aphorism
| ...   how about if the TAG humbly states that its unanimous opinion was
| designed to foster discussion rather than end it?

Ok. I wrote the message and I'm anxious to apologize if its tone was
the source of misunderstanding. I suppose I should have written a
longer, more carefully crafted note. Ironically, the note was written
in some haste because of concern (on the part of several of us) that
if our conclusions only showed up in the minutes that it would look
like we weren't being up front and our failure to say something
explicit would be the source of bad feeling. Sigh.

                                        Be seeing you,

- -- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | Why shouldn't things be largely absurd,
XML Standards Architect | futile, and transitory? They are so, and we
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | are so, and they and we go very well
                        | together.--Santayana
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <>


Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 11:55:45 UTC