W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Manners and civil behaviour Re: mouseenter, mouseleave

From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:33:45 -0700
Message-ID: <c9e12660907311433o5259d2can489fc3b93ac8eb4d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Jacob Rossi <t-jacobr@microsoft.com>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>, Travis Leithead <travil@microsoft.com>
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Charles McCathieNevile<chaals@opera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:23:52 +0200, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Charles McCathieNevile<chaals@opera.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Maciej, this comment is out of line. Garrett, your question wasn't
>>> necessary either, and if not especially rude was somewhat lacking
>>> in respect for the fact that people may have things to do beyond
>>> spend every minute reading the latest message to the list.
>>
>> Really?
>
> Yes.
>
> Respect for people implies avoiding the implication that their work is not
> valuable, or that they have not considered what they have said, as well as
> avoiding directly insulting people.
>

Fine, but none of that has anything to do with what I wrote.

>> You seem to have a great deal of knowledge about my personal
>> intentions. Please reread what I wrote.
>
> Your remark reads with an implication that Maciej should have read what you
> wrote and accepted it at face value,

No, not at all. You completely misread.

I asked a question to see if we were all on the same page.

Was my first response's example and explanation clear? Then Maciej
could correct or clarify. Was it not seen? Was it seen but
intentionally ignored? misunderstood? I did in fact post an incomplete
example with a little hand waving. Maciej posted a much less clear
description after that. So, don't you think it serves the discussion
well to see if we're all on the same page?

and that his contribution is
> effectively pointless. Whatever your intention (I have no idea what it was,
> actually), the tone of your words was less than polite and respectful.
>
> Now, can we return to discussion of a complex set of technical issues
> please, while trying to be respectful of each other?
>

That's all I wanted in the first place. I don't like quibbling about
quibbling and I have a ton of things that are way more fun to do[1].

I don't like it that you started a new discussion, out of context, and
with false accusations. I don't like being implicated in such
discussion. If you want to set an example, in the future, can you
please,do so proacticely and not implicate others? Don't help others
throw stones.

Thanks,

Garrett

> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
>    je parle franįais -- hablo espaņol -- jeg lærer norsk
> http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
>

http://www.google.com/search?q=san+francisco&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 21:34:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:14:03 GMT