- From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 03:14:09 -0600
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Robin Berjon wrote: > > > > > Maybe that means it's working as intended? > > In a world in which a trivial form of logic applied this would indeed > hold, but the problem in question can be approached from many angles > and could therefore, if it were threatening us, be observed from > other vantage points. > I don't disagree in the slightest. > > If you're going to assume malice, at the very least assume minimally > competent malice. Not only is it kinder and more respectful to those > who really are out to get you, but if you stop to think about it > being paranoid about dumbness is a waste of perfectly good > fretfulness. > I'm not, nor am I required to in order to defend my position, assuming malice. I do see an architectural shift from interoperability to "what's best for browsers" and would prefer if browser vendors didn't "capture" the TAG -- which isn't outside the realm of possibilities without the rule in question, despite its drawbacks. > > No one is aiming to take over the TAG. > No, just the Web... -Eric
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 09:14:31 UTC