- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 20:36:28 +0200
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
On 2011-06-23 20:10, Sam Ruby wrote: > ... > As an example, I do see "WebGL has some major security issues and this > change is nothing more than addressing the tip of the ice berg while > ignoring the rest. I think it is more dangerous to add than not.", but > if that is more of a position than an argument. Please explain why you > think it is dangerous, with specifics. Furthermore, it is not clear that > WebGL is the only intended beneficiary for this change. > ... a) I'm proxying, as you know. b) How would I know what the "intended beneficiaries" are when there is no discussion about the feature? Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 18:37:07 UTC