- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 05:34:10 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 04/07/2010 05:12 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 24.03.2010 05:55, Ian Hickson wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> On Mar 3, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>>> >>>> - That being said, I think a reference to ISO/IEC 646 would be >>>> acceptable as well; this one is re-published by ECMA as ECMA-006, >>>> which is available online >>>> (<http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-006.htm>) >>> >>> Ian, would a reference to ISO/IEC 646 aka ECMA-006 be acceptable to you? >> >> I think debating this is a waste of our time and am not willing to get >> drawn into a discussion of the topic. > > ... > > I read that as "no". > > This was two weeks ago. Can we please finally have a call for counter > proposals, or move directly to a call for consensus? I'll note that we do have a large number of calls for various things (proposals, counter proposals, etc) outstanding at the moment. We also have had a number of situations where we have made such calls only to find out that the volunteer misses their date and asks for an extension. I will say that we won't close any issue without either an amicable resolution or a decision. That goes for all issues. Including this one. > Best regards, Julian - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 09:34:39 UTC