- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:56:22 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 2011-03-19 15:10, Sam Ruby wrote: > == Arguments not considered > > The following arguments expressed in the survey were not considered for > the reason specified: > > Additionally, it is asserted that this proposal contains "unjustified > changes, inconsistencies, unimplementable requirements and is overall > inappropriate for use in the specification." > > This argument is entirely lacking in specifics. That was quoted from the summary of my arguments. As I clearly stated, the supporting rationale was given in the document I linked to. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Jun/att-0072/Content-Language.html At several points throughout that, it indicates sections that were inconsistent, unjustified, or which lacked implementation requirements. Anyway, it doesn't matter much. I'm pleased with the outcome of this issue. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2011 22:56:56 UTC