- From: Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 15:54:23 +0000
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 6/24/11 11:32 AM, "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote: >On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Xiaoshu Wang <xiao@renci.org> wrote: >> >> First, let me make this clear. I have never denied the problem you >> described here is not a problem. My argument has always been >>httpRange-14 >> is a wrong solution to the problem. > >What I have always heard you say is that httpRange-14 was not a >solution to any problem. That's a very different position. I'm glad >you've come around; getting you to agree that it *is* a solution, >however inadequate, was my only goal here. Let me be clear. My position has never be changed. I don't think word-playing here does any good. Any solution must be doing something because it will otherwise not be called a solution. But a solution can be evaluated to be good by the criteria of whether it can do something. If this is the point of argument, then let's not waste time debating any solution. My criteria of evaluating a solution is to see if it does more *harm* than *right*. And by that criteria, I think httpRange-14 is a *bad*, if not *wrong*, solution because the web with httpRange-14 is much more difficult, if not impossible, to work with. Xiaoshu
Received on Friday, 24 June 2011 15:54:54 UTC