W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2016

Re: CFC on referencing the Image Description (longdesc) extension

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:08:33 -0700
Cc: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <A09BF045-F34A-4172-882F-A4F9AD9D046D@apple.com>
To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>

> On Aug 12, 2016, at 11:02 , Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
> It sounded like a very good compromise to me, and I thought it had been agreed to and that is why it was going to CfC, and why I supported it.
> Though I wasn’t *happy* about the agreement (but was willing to accept it), compromise means "you don't get everything you want", right?

There wasn’t anyone happy with the previous compromise, I suspect. But I feel as if we’re in “frog boiling” (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog>); we reach a compromise, it all goes quiet for a while, and then incrementally we’re asked to compromise between there and one end.

OK, it must be Friday, two jokes in one post:

An infinte number of mathematicians enter a bar. The first one asks for a pint of beer. Then the second asks for half a pint; the third for a quarter of a pint, and so on. Eventually the barman gets exasperated and says “the trouble is, you guys just don’t know your limits!”.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Friday, 12 August 2016 18:09:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 12 August 2016 18:09:04 UTC