Mykyta, You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Mine, as you can tell, differs. I'll let others be the judge on weight. My opinion on that is that it's not worth wasting effort over.
On 22 December 2011 06:10, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, I don't see enough motivation for Standards Track, so I've > chosen Informational. It's a new semantic, which in my experience usually equates to standards track. It's not a big deal, but just for reference, argument from precedent doesn't work very well. >> [...] the document should not focus on one single use case >> in one document. It should establish the usefulness of the relation >> type for a class of use cases and use the specific instance as an >> example only. The way the document is written it barely even hints at >> other uses. > > I think my document now does, providing W3C use as an only example > whereas not claiming it is the only possible use. Relying on what the draft *doesn't* say is not especially effective. Establishing a reason for the existence of the mechanism is possibly more important than the description of that mechanism. --Martin _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
