[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issues list
Andy will be trying to issue a new draft in the next
week; if he has an inspiration on how to make that clearer,
he will. In the mean time, I have sent a message to IANA asking
if they find the current language clear enough to allow them to
do the work they need.
If you have specific language to propose, please
send it to Andy.
On Jun 16, 7:07pm, Koen Holtman wrote:
> Subject: Re: Issues list
> Ted Hardie:
> >4) (RAT_HOLE)
> >The current language will be retained.
> Your previous proposal on this issue was:
> proposal is to treat the language change as an editorial issue
> clarifying our intent to focus on media features and otherwise
> leave things alone.
> I really would like to see an editorial clarification to the current
> language. I consider the current sentence
> Feature tags
> indicating political or social context are not appropriate.
> to be severely broken because I read 'not appropriate' as a normative
> statement, one what would require us to exactly define `political or
> social context' (as being disjoint from `presentation-related context'
> I believe that you mean the 'not apropriate' sentence to be read as a
> non-normative clarification of the sentence before it, not as an
> additional restriction. If you do mean it to be read as a
> clarification, then we have consensus about what the draft is supposed
> to say, and this issue is an editorial one. If you think that the
> 'not appropriate' sentence is important by itself, then we do not have
>-- End of excerpt from Koen Holtman