# [16:26] <MikeSmith> anne: I expect that DanC will send out an announcement tomorrow
# [16:27] * Philip hopes that the lack of responses is interpreted as a lack of objections, rather than a lack of support
# [16:27] <MikeSmith> Philip: yeah, that's sort of a given
# [16:28] <MikeSmith> 72 responses is a big number no matter how you look at it
# [16:29] <MikeSmith> most WGs don't have more than 10 or 15 participants total
# [16:30] <Philip> Hmm, are we talking about the same thing? I meant the offline-webapps thing that anne mentioned, which had 0 responses, which is not a big number unless you don't believe in positive integers
# [16:31] <Dashiva> Philip: What if you believe in wraparound and unsigned integers?
# [16:31] <MikeSmith> I hadn't actually looked at anne's url
# [16:31] <MikeSmith> personally I don't really care much about whether we publish that doc or not
# [16:31] <Dashiva> Considering there was at least some noise last time, I don't think people who would object to it are silent
# [16:32] <MikeSmith> hard for me to see what reasonable objections there would be to publishing it
# [16:33] <Lachy> since it's only being published as a note, it doesn't really need to represent concensus of the group
# [16:33] <Philip> Dashiva: When God created the integers, I don't think he cared much about finite binary storage - that's just an implementation detail
# [16:34] <Philip> Could I reasonably object that some of the example code is missing semicolons? :-)
# [16:35] * Philip should probably email minor comments
# [16:35] <Lachy> Philip, if fixing the editorial issues would allow you to remove your objection, then yes
# [16:37] <MikeSmith> going by my personal affection for draconian error handling, I judge lack of semicolons in examples to be a fatal error, so I hereby propose we all catch fire and fail
# [16:39] <Dashiva> Your lack of proper grammar has already set me ablaze!