Subject: RE: [Ltru] W3C tag policy disclaimers and IETF RFCs

From: "L.Gillam" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 17:17:31 +0100

Jefsey, are you deliberately attempting to misrepresent my position again? And doing so even after I described to you privately how to make use of x- for your own needs, which you have neither acknowledged nor refuted. And, above all, spelling my name incorrectly. Do you seek to annoy people in as many ways as possible? Is it a hobby?
 
"What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach."

________________________________

From: [email-masked] on behalf of r&d afrac
Sent: Sat 06/08/2005 22:51
To: LTRU Working Group
Subject: [Ltru] W3C tag policy disclaimers and IETF RFC

[snip]

 So after having tried with the "x-" proposition, we
followed Lee Guillam and disengaged through the "0-" escaped sequence. But
technically it is unlikely that Draft be accepted if the "x-" does not
support Kindberg RFC inheritance.

[snip]

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:57:04 +0200

At 18:17 07/08/2005, L.Gillam wrote:
>Jefsey, are you deliberately attempting to misrepresent my position again?

Dear Lee,
??? I do not represent any position of yours?

I just say that your point was well made. AFRAC discussed it and thought 
the best idea was to leave "x-" to your ideas (even if I do not think they 
match our needs: this is your ideas and you have the right to get them 
supported - up to you to document and support them). They also thought that 
the "0- escape sequence" is the best way to support our needs and to best 
respect the Draft ABNF (for "basic" libraries, it only means that all what 
is after "0-" is disregarded).

But I do not think your proposition support the Kindberg/Hawke RFC.

>And doing so even after I described to you privately how to make use of x- 
>for your own needs, which you have neither acknowledged nor refuted.

I have responded and fully documented that you did not. Or you responded a 
mail I did not receive (or which was filtered out by my anti-spam). What is 
the date-time of your last mail?

>And, above all, spelling my name incorrectly.

I apologies for that typo. No harm intended.

>Do you seek to annoy people in as many ways as possible?

It is rather a hobby to protect the human and cultural interests of as many 
people as possible against the annoyments artificially created by  others. 
But first, it is a defense against a few people wanting to annoy our work 
as much as they can.

>  Is it a hobby?

Oh! no.... unfortunately just a necessity they impose on us. Also a 
response to a demand of people, civil rights, industry and Govs, from 
developed and developing countries to help protecting their culture. An 
ethical duty.

jfc