On 4/30/05, Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Obviously, the WG doesn't find that MUST particularly crucial. > > Robert, will you stop banging your drum about this and let the WG get > a word in edgeways? If your position has such unanimous support it > will survive without you.
So, I have to be quiet. Is that what you're saying? Let me suggest you take your own advice. I wrote six sentences, after a day of no one paying attention to this pointless, intentionally obfuscated, and otherwise badly written proposal. Robert Sayre On 4/28/05, Tim Bray wrote: > > And of course we're going to have to fish some sort of > consensus out of this horrid summary-required mess. -Tim Bill responded > I can't agree with that observation. Although there are a few strenuous > objections against title only feeds, on the balance consensus is for > them. Is there something you're seeing that should make us think the > current consensus level is inadequate?
