On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Janina Sajka wrote: > Ian Hickson writes: > > On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Janina Sajka wrote: > > > > > > PF responded on these questions formally. We would appreciate the > > > basic human courtessy of acknowledgment. If you don't like what we > > > said, please speak to that. But kindly don't simply ignore us. > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/mid/[email protected] > > > > That e-mail received a reply some weeks ago: > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0027.html > > Ian, this email appears to be from you, and appears to reflect your > opinions. It does not appear this is a response from the HTML Wg.
Indeed. (The original request for a formal position from the WAI PF was also a request from an individual or group of individuals, and not a formal request from the HTML WG, for what it's worth.) > > Is there a formal reply to that e-mail? > > No, we don't make formal replies to individuals. Not even when they're editing the HTML5 spec? Would you make a formal reply to the WHATWG organisation, if it sent you a formal request? For what it's worth, your input really would be welcome. I really would like answers to the questions I asked; they are not rhetorical. If there is data that I have been missing, which explains why you hold the beliefs described in that e-mail, then I would like to see it, as it might substantially change the conclusions I have been drawing from the data we have seen in the HTMLWG so far. > PS: I recall you were asked to substantiate the allegations you made in > your email, specifically with respect to the "evidence" you claim. Where > is that substantiation, please? I discuss all the data, and provide references, in this recent e-mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0148.html Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
