- From: Allan Beaufour <beaufour@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:07:43 +0200
- To: "John Boyer" <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: www-forms@w3.org
On 4/26/06, John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > Someone on this thread attributed to me the following: > > >>John mentions that it "keeps coming up over and over and over again.", > > and then responded: > > >> and I think there is a reason. People want to use it... > > That person misinterpreted the word "it". That "someone" and "person" is me. Why not write that? > By "it", I meant that dynamic action attribute comes up over and over again. I've looked at your mail again, and I think that was a fair interpretation. Wrong, obviously, and I am sorry if I misquoted you, but imho with tofu, chances are high for that. > *Then* the discussion of AVTs comes up. > **Then** we remember why AVTs are a Pandora's box. > ***Then*** we discuss using event context. > ****Then**** we forget we had the discussion. Who is "we"? I have a different view of the timeline that _you_ present. I actually started a new thread to distinguish between 1) the use of pro/cons of AVTs in general and 2) specifically AVTs for @action. I see a good and healthy discussion of using AVTs between Joern and Erik. Issues of using AVTs in general, but also for @action (naturally). It is _your_ mail that brings the subject back to only concerning the @action. You point out that there are issues that needs to be solved for AVTs. Yes, correct. That is exactly why we should discuss it here. -- ... Allan
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2006 11:07:57 UTC