- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:08:09 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/16/2011 08:20 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 16.03.2011 12:46, Sam Ruby wrote: >>> Sam, >>> >>> the chair decision seems to be based on the assumption that the >>> reference isn't normative, and thus RFC 1345 is "good enough". I'm >>> *just* trying to understand the decision, because understanding it >>> properly is necessary to decide what to do next. >> >> The quote "good enough" appears nowhere in the decision. >> >> I repeat: if you wish to pursue this further, I suggest that you present >> new information as described by the decision, and accompany this >> information with a Change Proposal. I also encourage you to review the >> objections that were made to the previous proposal and to work with the >> individuals that made those objections. >> >> Once we have an actual Change Proposal in hand, we can discuss this >> further. Until then, the Chairs believe that the Group has duly >> considered the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is possible >> and reasonable, and that the group SHOULD move on. >> >>> Best regards, Julian > > Sam, > > with all due respect: I don't think I'm asking too much: > > - do *you* consider the reference to be informative? > > and > > - what exactly does it mean when you say "While it was not found to be > the strongest objection, the fact that the IETF no longer considers this > RFC to be official is a serious issue is a strong objection that merits > consideration by the Working Group."? > > It depends on the answers to these whether I'll file new bugs or > consider a formal objection. I've responded off list. The only thing I will add at this time is that any bugs on this subject that are opened without providing new information will be summarily closed. > Best regards, Julian - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 13:08:44 UTC