Dera Patrick, Dear David , dearest all: 

Nowadays, there is an agreement this may become an sterile debate, if
the issue is that there is no time to invest, neither and agreement on
what should be done. 

I propose, if there is any interest on the matter we are arguing, to
open a branch, and those of us who have the will, who see the need, and
dispose of some spare time to invest in a possible solution ( to be
presented in a future as an enhancement or a  recommendation), put our
hands to work. 

Count me in, _if there is a small group of devoted volunteers who want
to extend or put his hands dirt as an  __exercise,_ for file and ftp
URLs [6 [6]] in the fetch spec featured in WHATWG. 

Sundays I'm on.  



Delfi Ramirez -- At Work

My digital signature [1]

0034 633 589231 [2] 

twitter: @delfinramirez [3]
 IRC: segonquart
 Skype: segonquart [4]

On 2017-04-14 20:45, Patrick Dark wrote:

> David Kendal 於 4/14/2017 11:58 AM 寫道: On 11 Apr 2017, at 19:50, Patrick Dark 
> <> wrote:
> The "world wide web" is the user-facing portion of the Internet. Files
> on a CD or USB drive are not part of that. You are continuing to dodge this 
> problem by redefining the WHAT WG's
> responsibilities. Please don't do that.
> If you can't take my word for it, how about the inventor of the
> web itself? <>
> (Thanks to a correspondent, who I presume prefers to remain unnamed,
> for sending this to me off-list.)

"Appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy. An authoritative source
doesn't make an argument true.

I disagree with the idea that HTML files on offline media or a closed
intranet are part of the "world wide web".


[4] skype:segonquart

Reply via email to