Re: URIs quack like a duck

On Mon, 29 May 100, John Cowan wrote:
> 
> Michael Mealling scripsit:
> 
> > The 'backward compatibility argument' doesn't hold much
> > water with me... How many applications actually depend on this change?
> > If it isn't in the hundreds of thousands then I don't really care....
> 
> Feh.  You are willing, then, to dishonor your word, provided only a
> few persons who relied on it are "inconvenienced" thereby?  Remind me
> never to call *you* as a witness for anything.
> 
> By issuing a Recommendation, the W3C as an organization pledged its word.


Admiting a mistake should not bring dishonor.


Clark