- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 12:38:36 -0700
- To: Greg Gay <g.gay@utoronto.ca>
- CC: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, Wendy Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
GG:: "We are currently involved in the evaluation..." WL: Who's "We"? I just don't think that characterizing lynx as "legacy technology" is any more useful than thinking of UNIX as "old hat". The problems of JavaScript have to do with standards conformance, proprietary vs. open standards, interoperability, and lots of other issues relating to simply paying attention instead of heading up some primrose path of "latest, coolest, etc." stuff. In most cases the choices were made to use non-standard constructs by people who should have known better and the fact that retrofitting is a bitch while possibly a defense in this matter is still at best specious. If they are truly talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars cost in this thing then they should seek better programmers and re-examine their pricing structure. Incompetence is not a valid excuse and undue burden doesn't allow for self-imposed burdens. If this comes off as a flame, so be it. They got caught polluting the stream and now want to avoid sharing the cost of the cleanup (full stop.) -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Monday, 29 May 2000 15:39:57 UTC