Re: New resource: Normative References to W3C Standards

On Friday, April 19, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote:

> On 19/04/13 12:33, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> 
> > I'm sorry that I offended you. I was just trying to show you that arguing from authority is not helpful.
> 
> This is not at all "authority" and you should stare at the
> Send button of your MUA a few minutes before sending again such words.

Um, if qualifying a statement as coming from a "very, very famous name" is not arguing from authority, then I really don't know what is. o_0  
> > What position you or your colleagues hold does not carry any favor or weight in an argument. We are all equals here - being a "very, very famous name in the computer industry" doesn't suddenly make some right or more correct than anyone else.
> 
> 
> I could agree with what you said. I just made that point to show this
> opinion is shared outside of W3C or WHATWG far beyond unsignificant
> levels.

Then you could just have said, "I spoke to an individual who said they don't agree with Living Standards". But you tried to make it seem authoritative with "very, very famous".  
> I will disclose the name if I am authorized to do it.

There is no need. If the person wants to come and discuss this here, they are welcome to do so.   
> That said, there is no reason why you have to reply roughly or even
> with mockery. I urge you to reconsider your communication in W3C
> channels and in particular in a channel related to the TAG you wanted
> to reform, so you said on your blog.

Part of that reform is for the TAG to stop being seen as an ivory tower and to be on level with everyone else: http://w3cmemes.tumblr.com/post/34754018223/your-argument-is-invalid  
> You're elected, meaning you're
> supposed to carefully listen to the organizations that elected you.
> You may disagree with them, but respectfully and still listening.
> 

You are correct, I was too harsh. I will try to listen and respond better. 


-- 
Marcos Caceres

Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 10:59:07 UTC