Re: [emergency] EDXL Target Areas for device coded recipients

[Kon Wilms <kon@datacast.biz>]

On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 09:23 -0400, Art Botterell wrote:
> Check the attitude at the door, will you, Kon?  This really isn't  
> about you.

No, I will not check my attitude at the door. 

If you think I will sit still when you misquote me, patronize me, and
belittle my contributions as if I am not even a member of this group,
you are gravely mistaken.

You have a good track record of playing this game - along with the token
'its not about you' card. Minus the fact that your insults get bolder in
nature with every iteration.

I am not here to play kindergarten-level games with you, I am here to
work on a specification.

> Personally, for all the reasons I've explained before, I think it  
> would be an interoperability mistake to encourage building system- 
> specific codes into the targetArea block.  Besides which, in this  
> case it would be misleading, since the router isn't necessarily in  
> the target area.

I'm not going to repeat myself, because you obviously aren't listening
to what I am saying. You just want to argue this with excuses until I
get fed up attempting to explain it to you. And yes, the router is in
the target area.

> If you needs specific addressing a mechanism is provided, which is  
> <recipientAddress>.  Or for even more flexibility you could hold your  
> nose and simply use a <keyword>.

There you go again. Good attempt at the age-old shut up, sit down, and
use what I told you to line.

I am done discussing this with you. As was the case last time, this is
going to go nowhere. So I will write a full proposal to the group. No
doubt you *will* reply to this email though, in order to get the last
word in. Have at it.

Cheers
Kon