<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net">ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Lisa's repeating the error, claiming that some random heap of code is<br>
more important than all or almost all of the users of a particular<br>
value of a sequence of octets, because the users are organized as<br>
residents of states, rather than as the customers of a monopoly, or<br>
some other installed base of running code.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>That's certainly not what I claim. I only claimed that we cannot toss out a WG decision, or force a decision on a WG, based on a chosen expert. What expert and who would pick them? <br></div>
</div><br>I did claim that running code was an important influence on a WG consensus, by tradition, habit and official encouragement. <br> - First, that doesn't mean it's the only influence, or the most important influence in some considerations. <br>
- Second, the term is used both strictly, as in to demonstrate interoperability directly, and also loosely. By loose interpretations of "running code" you could claim that how a country uses a character in printed books was a form of deployed code that can be used as factual evidence. <br>
<br>Lisa<br>