From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Wed Oct 16 2002 - 12:29:54 CDT
David Barr (barr@visi.com):
>What is in the draft is fair game to be debated.
I'm glad you changed your mind.
The "approved header" is in this draft. The content of the approved header
is "fair game". And yet I could not discuss this because it was "new". The
functions of a moderator are in this draft, and yet discussing this
function was "new" and must stop. That was your ruling. Do you retract
that now?
>It's obvious we don't have consensus. The point of cutting off debate
>on items not in the draft is, simply, the old addage "If you find
>yourself in a hole, stop digging".
I'd say this encoding discussion is a very very deep hole, or haven't you
been watching the discussion? Since this discussion is about things in the
draft, and there is clearly NO consensus for what it should say or how
this magic internationalization should be done, it has no place in the
draft.
>Either we get consensus on a piece or it's out.
That is EXACTLY what I'm saying. Thank you for agreeing. How long do you
plan on watching this merry-go-round on character encoding go on before
you realize that there is no consensus and "it's out"?