[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] EDXL Target Areas for device coded recipients
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]