Lists Home |
Date Index |
> On Friday, September 27, 2002, at 08:38 AM, [Name Suppressed] wrote:
> > I don't think the W3C expected the XHTML folks to have the courage
> > of their convictions. It's a start.
> Can we please try to exercise a little self-control over this kind of
> offensive idiotic childishness? The HTML folks are part of the W3C.
> There's a difference of opinion. There are conflicting documents in
> w3.org/TR. There needs to be an argument. The TAG published its
> opinion before the F2F was even over because it was so obvious that
> work needs to be done.
As you've acknowledged yourself, the manner in which the TAG's judgment
was delivered made it sound like the argument was over, not merely
beginning. Getting upset over "offensive idiotic childishness" now
seems much like crying over milk you helped spill.
> An argument is happening in a totally open and
> public venue. Opinions and positions are going on the record. Smart
> people are thinking hard. Usually, this results in progress. This is
> THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK. -Tim
I'm still waiting for an open explanation of how we got into this mess
in the first place, and why the TAG so unanimously opted to reject
HLink. We're missing a lot of context that would help clear technical
discussion, so don't be surprised that you're getting a lot of emotions.
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:22.214.171.124.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether