- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:48:29 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, dean.edwards@gmail.com, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Johnny Stenback <jst@mozilla.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, L. David Baron wrote: > > I think there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the dispute over > proprietary plugins. For them, there is the argument that they help > promote innovation in the Web platform by competing with it from within, > and help address needs that are too small to be met by the general > tools. Against them, there is the argument that dependence of Web > content on proprietary plugins lowers the ability to innovate and > compete in the OS and hardware markets (because users are locked in to > the platforms on which popular proprietary plugins are available) and > takes away users' freedom to use access the Web with whatever software > they choose or to write software to do so. > > I think this debate belongs more in blogs and on mailing lists than > within examples in a specification. I've removed the example based on this rationale. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2010 08:49:01 UTC