W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > March 2000

RE: flying pigs considered harmful

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 10:00:15 -0800
Message-ID: <C35556591D34D111BB5600805F1961B91D5CDFCD@RED-MSG-47>
To: "'James P. Salsman'" <bovik@best.com>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
>The security concerns are actually more significant than the "it 
>won't run on my Mac/Unix workstation" -- at least for the majority 
>that don't have Mac or Unix workstations.  Promiscuous use of 
>insecure binary plug-in applications is another reason against 
>OBJECT and EMBED.
 
You are making the mistake of presuming that OBJECT elements can only ever
be for (as you put it) "insecure binary plug-in applications."  That was not
the spirit of the original specification, I do not believe.

>It is completely reasonable for the W3C to act in the general 
>interest of web users.  Supporting device upload would be in 
>their interest because of the reduced security concerns, the 
>more widespread accessibility on a diversity of platforms, and 
>the general utility of the services enabled for education, 
>commerce and industry.  I believe the W3C will try to hold on 
>to its leadership role in consumer protection pertaining to 
>browser technology.

I'm sorry, I fail to see when "the W3C" actually said it was against device
upload.  Various people expressed the inadequacies of your draft, and your
response, rather than addressing those concerns, was simply to start
spamming multiple people (myself included) and mailing lists.

And I have no idea what you mean by that last sentence.

-Chris Wilson
Received on Friday, 3 March 2000 13:01:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:43 GMT