Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities

On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 02:42:10PM -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

> (Well, I suppose it's because we all recognize that Lynx is such
> a limited HTML-viewer that it's unreasonable to require that it
> be accessible, because it lacks basic functionality beyond HTML
> display -- but then that was my point to begin with.)

  You suppose wrong - and it really would support your own position
  much better if you ceased making comments that presume on what
  others recognise or have opinions on. Them's spitin' woids, and I
  quite frankly can't see why you take such an agressive stance
  at every single crossroads.

  After all, you *did* start this yourself by making an incorrect
  comparison between Lynx and another browser.

-- 
 - Tina Holmboe