Hi-
Some context...
Ian Hickson wrote:
I propose that we let the document's editor
take into account all the input and then have the editor make a decision
that addresses everyone's concerns as much as possible.
[...]
I have confidence in Anne; I'm sure he would not design by theology, but
would indeed take into account everyone opinions and create a consistent
specification that is a good compromise without sacrificing spec quality.
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> One of the arguments that was made was also that the existing methods
> have failed, which would make #3 the odd one out and probably #2 as
> well. "I don't really care what the final name, but it should match
> the first principle..."
Given the editor's strong stance for your own viewpoint, it seems that
your deference to him is not altruistic.
If you merely want the debate to end, the obvious course of action is
for you to concede the point. Otherwise I suggest we find a real
compromise, not just editorial whim. Both implementors and authors have
come down on both sides of this argument, sadly.
Regards-
-Doug
