Lists Home |
Date Index |
9/30/2002 2:35:13 PM, Norman Walsh <email@example.com> wrote:
>Perhaps my nerves are a little raw because I feel more than usually
>responsible for the level of emotion in this discussion because I
>started it off with a poorly worded message.
As one who has read the raw IRC log of the TAG meeting, I didn't find
that your message was poorly worded at all. You summarized the consensus.
When the corrected minutes are made public, we can all judge for ourselves.
The would "should" is clearly the operative term here, and I don't think
I'm betraying my omerta oath by saying that it is used throughout the
discussion as recorded in IRC. The TAG charter
says "The primary activity of the TAG is to develop Architectural
Recommendations. An Architectural Recommendation is one whose primary purpose
is to set forth fundamental principles that should be adhered to by all
Most readers interpreted "should" in terms of RFC 2119:
"This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course."
In that context, many readers of both the IRC log and your public message
concluded that TAG decided to issue an Architectural Recommendation
to the effect that there are too many linking technologies out here
already, and we SHOULD all learn to stop worrying and love XLink. It should
be obvious that that didn't go over too well, and I can certainly understand
if the TAG is reconsidering ...if in fact that's a reasonable interpretation
of what you actually did decide.
I sorta think you're falling on your sword for the good of the TAG, Norm.
I suspect that y'all meant to say exactly what you said. So, how about an
authoritative statement from someone on what the TAG Really Decided
the other day ... especially considering that the XHTML folks have
already "understood and carefully weighed" the implications of ignoring
the XLink syntax.