W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Issue 100 Zero-Edits Counter Proposal

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:51:01 +0200
Message-ID: <4BC4AF05.8000009@gmx.de>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 13.04.2010 19:20, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Shelley Powers<shelley.just@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> I would rather let others determine what is or is not a strong
>> argument. You can express your opinion, of course, but it's an
>> opinion. In my opinion, srcdoc is one of the ugliest things I've seen
>> in markup, and I've seen some pretty ugly markup.
> I didn't say anything about the strength of your argument.  A weak but
> relevant argument is still a welcome counter.
> This specific argument is *irrelevant*, which is something else
> entirely.  It is an argument against a completely different feature.
> It doesn't matter how strong or weak the argument is, because it has
> nothing to do with the feature we're talking about.

I disagree it's irrelevant.

For instance, the fact that people who were supposed to be the target 
audience of sandboxing aren't interested may indicate that we should 
consider to reduce the "badness" of the sandbox proposal, by killing a 
very specific part of it, but keeping the rest.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 17:51:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC