- From: Tina Marie Holmboe <tina@elfi.elfi.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 00:07:13 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 02:42:10PM -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote: > (Well, I suppose it's because we all recognize that Lynx is such > a limited HTML-viewer that it's unreasonable to require that it > be accessible, because it lacks basic functionality beyond HTML > display -- but then that was my point to begin with.) You suppose wrong - and it really would support your own position much better if you ceased making comments that presume on what others recognise or have opinions on. Them's spitin' woids, and I quite frankly can't see why you take such an agressive stance at every single crossroads. After all, you *did* start this yourself by making an incorrect comparison between Lynx and another browser. -- - Tina Holmboe
Received on Wednesday, 26 December 2001 18:40:01 UTC