- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 13:56:48 -0600
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>, w3c-archive@w3.org, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, 1981km@gmail.com
2010/2/6 John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>: > # [03:00] <AryehGregor> Like "UAs should think up clever stuff to do if > there's no alt text, but any author who relies on this will be held to > judgment and suffer in hell for all eternity". > # [03:00] <AryehGregor> (the latter part is non-normative) > # [03:01] <AryehGregor> (unless you think you can God to follow the spec) > > # [03:01] <AryehGregor> s/God/get God/ > # [03:04] <TabAtkins> AryehGregor's summary is accurate. > > Both Aryeh and Tab are entitled to be jerks in private, but making changes > to the specification based upon back-room banter is unacceptable (as well, > here Tab appears to contradict himself from his previous public statement > that removing the reference was acceptable: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1203.html) Sigh. I'm a contradictory jerk? Really? Dude, I didn't contradict myself. I think that removing the specific technology reference and pointing to UUAG is acceptable (not necessarily required, but acceptable). Aryeh's summary doesn't say anything against that. And I really think that *was* an accurate summary. It's what I got out of the discussion, at least, and I read every message that comes through this list. So, seriously, tone down the rhetoric and insults. It's not helpful. ~TJ
Received on Saturday, 6 February 2010 19:57:41 UTC