Consensus and Community (W3C and xml-dev)

Mark Nutter mnutter at
Fri Sep 3 14:12:48 BST 1999

At 04:24 PM 09/02/99 -0400, you wrote:
>What Simon wants, of course, is the rationale.  *What* was the compelling
>argument that made the HTML WG reverse itself on this point, so close
>to PR?

Are we sure there was a (singular) compelling argument?  What if the WG 
reached its conclusion after a long and convoluted debate (such as the 
debate that's been going on here lately)?  Supplying a concise rationale 
might be a "non-trivial" task, might it not?

I'm trying to avoid taking sides here, but I'm getting a sense that perhaps 
conditions might be ripe for the evolution of conspiracy theories that 
aren't really accurate or helpful.  I've been learning a lot from the 
discussion, and I hope the flow of information isn't impeded by anybody 
feeling that they have to watch what they say.

Pardon the intrusion, I'll sit back and return to just watching the show 
again.  Thanks for your patience.


Mark Nutter, <mnutter at>
Internet Applications Developer
FORE Systems

When birds start perching on the lawn, it's time to mow it.

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list