Re: Issues outstanding

[John Stanley <stanley@xxxxxxxx>]

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>You have so asserted many times. Several members of this WG who have taken
>the trouble to read your rants 

I am tired of you categorizing things you disagree with as a "rant". We've
covered this topic before, and it has been established that there is only
one way to know if an article is a followup or not, and that is to make
References header mandatory in a followup and prohibited in non-followups.
This is true no matter how you define a followup or what color the sky is
on the planet you live on. Any other set of requirements removes the
ability to determine what is and is not a followup. Now, while you may
consider that ability to be useless, that ability has been considered
important enough, prior to the latest drafts, of course, that it warranted
"MUST/MUST NOT" language. Either it is important to provide this
information or it is not. If it is not, then fine. I will not expect to
see it suddenly become important again in the next draft. Do not claim one 
thing now and suddenly change your mind later.

>...have agreed that what I stated is correct. I regard that issue as 
>closed.

Forty million frenchmen cannot be wrong, eh, Pascal?