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

Re: flying pigs considered harmful

From: Frank Boumphrey <bckman@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 13:41:30 -0500
Message-ID: <00ee01bf8540$18860260$71d16fd1@prioritynetworks.net>
To: "Chris Wilson" <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>, "'James P. Salsman'" <bovik@best.com>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
I am about to be chased off this list which is a pity because I believe that
W3C WG members should keep a close ear to the ground.

However I'm not sure that I can stand any more of this spamming thread. Mr.
Salsman needs to understand that the more he spams and uses (transparent)
aliases the more he antagonizes (formerly) reasonable open minded people
like myself   who make up the bulk of the W3C working groups.

I know I am adding to the noise, but i am doing it in the hope that Mr.
Salsman will finally come to his senses and realize that tilting at
windmills will win him no battles.

Again I apologize for adding to the general noise level.

Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>
To: 'James P. Salsman' <bovik@best.com>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 1:00 PM
Subject: RE: flying pigs considered harmful


> >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 13:23:25 GMT

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