James. You know. Why don't you apply you 80/20 rule to security
considerations too? [1]
My guess is that most clients don't care much about security. Look at
the 90% of people that use windows. You see, I at least use facts to
back up my 80/20 rule.
In the mean time I suppose the fact that the group can't even get
synchronization done because it is too complicated, has nothing to do
with anything I am saying.
Henry
[1] http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg05616.html
On 9 Jul 2006, at 19:04, James M Snell wrote:
The problem, however, is that it's utterly pointless. Henry's
position
regarding RDF is well established, as is the WG's general opposition
towards using RDF. I think that it's safe to say that no one is going
to change their minds regarding the value and use of RDF. This
late in
the game, trying to debunk Henry's arguments serves no purpose other
than to distract the discussion away from other, more important
conversations... like the security considerations that still need
to be
wrapped up.
- James
Bill de hÓra wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
Could y'all take this religious war offline? Is is not
appropriate for
this mailing list, and doesn't help us get our protocol finished.
Thanks!
I understand. But, this is not a religious war, this is about
revisiting
design decisions late in the process. As the "other RDF guy in the
room"
fundamental nonsense about RDF as a better alternative or modeling
approach for protocol formats needs to be debunked, firmly, on-
list, or
it won't stop coming up. Plus, and again as the "other RDF guy in the
room", I won't let these kind of unsubstantiated claims stand for the
record. No way.
cheers
Bill
