RE: The unmentionable

>From: Thomas Lord []
>Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:45 PM

>This thread started because someone from
>Ascender stated their position and I made the
>point I did.  They expressed appreciation and
>agreement for it.  I don't know what you are
>going on about.

I work closely with Ascender and couldn't relate your
specific argument to either their public or private concerns
as I understand them. Hence my keen interest in figuring out
what the heck was going on despite my obvious doubts that any
such concern was warranted or relevant.

>> Did someone request that the actual standard require same-origin/CORS
>> for the specific purpose of license enforcement ?
>Someone came very close and was happy to receive
>the caution I offered to them.

Glad to hear it !

>What you are trying to accomplish, on the other hand,
>is unclear.

I tried to understand why your specific concern was relevant
to a future WG, your alleged risk of FOs etc.

>He seemed to appreciate the feedback.

Sure. Bill is a swell guy ! But as Ascender indicated they would
not require same-origin checks and only hoped customers would put
some access restrictions in place, it's puzzling that we should
worry about the consequences of them actually expecting it...Anyway.


>Now you are restating something I said in the
>very message that started your long attack on

I know, I know. Disagreement, however
well-founded, constitutes some level of personal
'attack' on your person.

>I suggest that you go back and read this thread
>again from the point where I offered my caution to

Good. I'm glad we've established there was nothing there. Again.

Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 00:15:40 UTC