- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:46:26 -0700
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
Harry > On Apr 12, 2017, at 11:39 , Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote: > > > Google, please define collusion: > > > > col·lu·sion > > kəˈlo͞oZHən/ > > noun > > • secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others. > > > > Wild accusations of this kind are unacceptable. This conversation is at an end. > > > > > > I think that again you are going off topic to avoid the topic at hand. > > You made an accusation against members of *illegal activity*, which you have neither withdrawn nor apologized for. In fact, below, you dig in deeper. Perhaps you could stay on *that* topic long enough to withdraw the accusation and apologize? Otherwise, as I say, this conversation is at an end. > > > I said, contra Mark's agrument that browser vendors are neutral, that there is collusion OK, earlier you accused me of not reading. The *definition* of the word you used — collusion — is that it is secret or illegal activity intended to cheat or deceive, and I gave you verbatim one such definition above. Did you read it? > between the browser and other parts of a company and so browsers are not neutral. I see no reason to apologize for such an obvious statement, and I would appreciate it if you used a measured and reasonable tone. I ask you to withdraw an accusation that browsers are engaged in activity that is secret or illegal, and intended to cheat or deceive, and you respond by describing my request as not taking a measured and reasonable tone? David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2017 18:47:02 UTC