Hi Guys! Did you see this email? Did you notice all the questions about the technical basis of your position? Maybe you should answer them.
Also, I'm having trouble reconciling your road lying with the assertion that the two proposals are compatible. How can they be if their outcomes are so different? Robert Sayre On 5/9/05, Bill de hÓra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think, more or less, that PaceTextShouldBeProvided only exists because > PaceOptionalSummary has not been successfully dismissed. I have no idea > why title-only feeds are unfortunate, are an interoperability problem, > or an accessibility problem. In fact I felt we had put the accessibility > issue to bed weeks ago, but it popped up again in the > PaceTextShouldBeProvided's rationale. > > > > One thing I would like those who advocate PaceOptionalSummary to the > > exclusion of all other Paces on the subject to consider... what happens > > if the chairs determine that consensus can't be found on either of these > > paces? Look at the current wording of draft-08. Is that what you > > really want? > > If the chairs count it up, I think they could find consensus. I think > they could have done that a fortnight ago. Or last week. I agree with > Robert's paraphrasing, that we are drowning in +1s. And I fail to > understand why this has been dragged out so long. There are a few > strongly voiced objections, but is that sufficient reason to grind this > one out? > > > We can do better. > > I started out 0 and moved to +1 based on the arguments I saw presented > for and against PaceOptionalSummary and my own thinking. I'm -1 on > PaceTextShouldBeProvided, and have explained why. I honestly don't know > how I can do any better on this. > > cheers > Bill > >
