James M Snell wrote:
Ok, so given that I think this is the fifth or sixth note in which
you've said exactly the same thing, I think your position has been well
established. What would be excellent is if you'd give others the
opportunity to weigh in on it before trying so hard to filibuster it.
James M Snell wrote:
Ok, so given that I think this is the fifth or sixth note in which
you've said exactly the same thing, I think your position has been well
established. What would be excellent is if you'd give others the
opportunity to weigh in on it before trying so hard to filibuster it.
Rogers Cadenhead wrote:
My thinking was that we're accomplishing a task
similar to the creators of the Robots Exclusion meta
tag [1] -- put X values in element Y to achieve effect
Z.
Hmm, have to disagree. The behavior is already well-documented, so this
isn't accomplishing much. This
, the proposal seems so poorly researched and poorly
coordinated with WHAT-WG that I don't see how you can make that claim.
When Pilgrim wrote the draft, there weren't as many existing
implementations, so his approach made more sense at the time.
--
Robert Sayre
with the accept element there. And praise to mnot, who
suggested we do this in RFC4287 but was overruled by the WG (including
myself).
--
Robert Sayre
On 11/28/06, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 28, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
They already know how, in general. The WHAT-WG is the place to work
out edge cases in HTML semantics.
Over the course of history, a remarkable number of different groups
have jumped up and down
On 11/28/06, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. Are multiple alternate links with the same type attribute
considered to be equivalent regardless of where those links appear
in the document.
What do you mean by equivalent ?
--
Robert Sayre
or equivalent. The president of the
United States makes frequent use of this device.
Mission Accomplished!,
Robert Sayre
On 11/30/06, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Panzer wrote:
[snip]
+1 to doing this outside of APP (but concerned about deprecating...)
[snip]
An I-D / RFC can update another RFC
I think John should edit.
--
Robert Sayre
On 11/30/06, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What rhetorical device is it to point out the rhetorical devices
used by other participants in a discussion?
Gosh, Aristotle. I'm sure I don't know. Y'all let me know when y'all
figure it out.
- Bobby
to ignore unknown parameters.
--
Robert Sayre
on autodiscovery, and it can include
information that would not be permitted in an IETF or WHAT-WG
document, so it will always be more valuable and current.
--
Robert Sayre
--
cheers,
Robert Sayre
I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.
http://franklinmint.fm/
http://feedautodiscovery.org/
501 - 514 of 514 matches
Mail list logo
