- From: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:19:44 -0500
- To: www-archive@w3.org
> > The approach of just ducking controversy doesn't improve accessibility. Making "requirements" couched in lots of subjective, unverifiable qualifying language resembles ducking controversy to me. > It > attempts to put an immediate spec-writing and working-group benefit > (namely, being able to move forward without objections) ahead of the user. > This, IMHO, is unacceptable (and is counter to our design principles). I don't think this kind of argument is productive. Using it, someone claiming to represent users could challenge any edit to the document. In other words, it's "wrapping yourself in the flag". > It > also doesn't actually work, because it won't get any more consensus -- it > will just move the objections from one group of people to another. > The first part of that sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the second. - Rob
Received on Saturday, 21 February 2009 03:20:26 UTC