- From: Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 08:51:57 +0000
- To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
- CC: 'Charles McCathieNevile' <chaals@opera.com>, 'John Foliot' <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, 'Wai-Ig' <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org, 'HTMLWG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'WebAIM Discussion List' <webaim-forum@list.webaim.org>, 'Gawds_Discuss' <gawds_discuss@yahoogroups.com>
John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote: > Recently I’ve come under attack (sometimes viscously and personally) > for daring to suggest that “fail” when writing HTML5 should have > catastrophic consequences. The most recent incident involves my > exploration of what should constitute appropriate (and now > mandatory) fallback content for the <canvas> element. Brushing aside > the personal attacks by small and narrow minds, I’d like to explore > and expand upon my position a bit further. John, I don't think you should have to suffer such attacks. Would you be willing to publish them, so that the various WG Chairmen have a chance to review them and to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the senders are left in no doubt that such attacks will not be tolerated ? Philip TAYLOR.
Received on Sunday, 22 March 2009 08:53:08 UTC