On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 09:18:35AM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Hi, > Quoting Thomas Hood (2014-09-04 15:42:00) > > On 3 September 2014 10:28, Johannes Schauer <j.schauer@email.de> wrote: > > > Can we somehow fix that? > > > CC-ing Thomas Hood as he introduced that change into the spec. > > Please note that at that time (Octobler 2013) I was trying to clarify > > and expand the explanation in order to reflect what I thought was > > intended, not to change those prescriptions on my own (nonexistent) > > authority. I was told, however, that I shouldn't revise that document > > (but presumably create a new page for the purpose of explaining how to > > interpret the spec) and vorlon reverted some of my changes. I > > subsequently suggested and now suggest again that the rest of my > > changes be reverted. > as of today the spec still says "none". Who would have the authority to revert > it back? Reverted the no->none change. Those changes that were not reverted, I regarded as reasonable text clarifications that did not change the meaning of the spec. I overlooked this particular incompatibility with the implementation at the time, sorry about that. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature