Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00

Martin Thomson <> Thu, 22 December 2011 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9C6621F84BA for <>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:57:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xXW0IRy0vTCS for <>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:57:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 251D021F84B4 for <>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:57:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eaak10 with SMTP id k10so1024327eaa.31 for <>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:57:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=HmZiT/7q3K2rVvmKqOoJOXVPw67p4vXI9yiZBJaG3TY=; b=pk82Zjj7NiSqpSFo0V5D5DwyaX333KTItkcNOxU+QGZAVZII7iUHI0o+RuMu8a/VLC DibXWIX0WqvkvsJdmTACSfBCQF/crH4apOMbHVFmjn7D0nqkjVQchGEqLmRb2zthBXKw OI//YNclzuQbiwefABhYjKCMjxvIN+jqFzhfc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id jk18mr2665774bkc.1.1324519065276; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:57:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:57:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:57:45 +1100
Message-ID: <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] GenART review of draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:57:46 -0000


You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.  Mine, as you can tell,
differs.  I'll let others be the judge on weight.  My opinion on that
is that it's not worth wasting effort over.

On 22 December 2011 06:10, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <> wrote:
> Well, I don't see enough motivation for Standards Track, so I've
> chosen Informational.

It's a new semantic, which in my experience usually equates to
standards track.  It's not a big deal, but just for reference,
argument from precedent doesn't work very well.

>> [...] the document should not focus on one single use case
>> in one document. It should establish the usefulness of the relation
>> type for a class of use cases and use the specific instance as an
>> example only. The way the document is written it barely even hints at
>> other uses.
> I think my document now does, providing W3C use as an only example
> whereas not claiming it is the only possible use.

Relying on what the draft *doesn't* say is not especially effective.
Establishing a reason for the existence of the mechanism is possibly
more important than the description of that mechanism.