Re: Comments on straw poll

>I have in fact analysis the comments document at some length
>and found that the actual beliefs of those participating were not
>represented will in the (technically inconsistent IMHO) result.

Then the proper response is to clarify the points of confusion and repeat
the straw poll. If you get a new result, that tells us something.  If you
get the same result, that tells us something very different.

I understand that you consider the results technically inconsistant. My own
belief is that the poll showed that the majority of us felt it was within
acceptable bounds.


I know you don't want to get into process issues. But I'd like some vague
reassurance that the time spent on this discussion is actually productive.
If the AB/AC are going to make the decision, then what we should be working
toward is a concise/complete/fair statement of the pros and cons of each
proposal. That's a somewhat different discussion from one where we're
trying to convince each other in preparation for another poll.

>At WWW9 I have found no one not prepared to consider absolutization yet
>of those I have tracked down.

I am prepared to consider absolutization. But that's under the heading of
"I can make any of these options work for names that start out as absolute,
and I think the remaining names should be deprecated." I still consider
compare-after-absolutize the least appropriate behavior for Namespace
Names.

I'm also prepared to consider discarding the entiire namespace spec and
tackling it from scratch. That doesn't mean I like the idea!


______________________________________
Joe Kesselman  / IBM Research

Received on Thursday, 18 May 2000 18:51:31 UTC