I am making a formal complaint of bullying here. I did not accuse anyone of lying. I gave an opportunity to retract the libel, Mr Moore has refused.
It was precisely this attitude and the fact that Mr Moore was an AD at the time that led many people working on the Web to conclude that IETF was not going to be a viable venue.
It is one thing for there to be 'robust discussion', quite another when an AD is expressing their opinion in this manner. Because then the process really isn't a consensus process any more.
I spent a great deal of time working on my theory of URIs and read close to 50 books on Semiotics and related work. I never saw any evidence that the fixed opinions others had on the subject were the result of similar research.
Whether the nature of the IESG's behavior led the Web people to leave or not is a matter of opinion, that URNs and URLs do not constitute disjoint semantic sets is not. Whether or not a URI can be resolved or not is determined only by the characteristics of the available resolution services. It has always been the case that many URLs do not work in any browser and many pure URNs will be resolved perfectly happily if you plug them into a browser (because they call on a search engine).
That was not in fact even the lunacy I was even pointing to which was that we should be typing url:http://cnn.com/ and urn:isbn:294849, a proposal that was made loudly and repeatedly and was correctly ignored.
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 11:02 AM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It's probably better if we don't continue the conversation. I don't really see the point in rehashing things that are 25 years old, and are now water under the bridge. But neither did I think your statement should stand without being refuted.
You may now have the last word if you wish.
Keith
On 7/20/19 10:55 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Fix the damn subject line and apologize if you want to continue this conversation.
