Tony McNamara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given that more people use IE than read W3C, IE has more "general
> consent". [...]
You count use as a consent? You'd be laughed out of court in the UK if
you tried to claim that for our data control laws. If not, please show
me the consent agreements describing this standard...
> I don't agree that the W3C standard holds more water with corporations,
> web authors, and users than what their browsers do. That's like
> saying that water that meets federal standards is good drinking water
> regardless of taste; it uses standards over reality.
Would you drink water that didn't meet those "federal standards"?
> [...] resisting supporting those same evils with a collection
> tool sacrifices usability to no good end. [...]
Uh, I thought we were just refusing to do the work ourselves (because it's
not nice for us and no-one has yet described a good fix) and refusing to
accept changes that support this at the expense of breaking something
else. Is that resisting? Everyone who wants this is still free to
contribute a patch that doesn't break any standards-compliant site and
I suspect that it would be accepted. Personally, I suspect it's not
possible to write such a "damage-free" fix, else one of the supporters
who writes such huge essays on the topic would have done it by now.
I am not core etc.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Thought: "Changeset algebra is really difficult."
_______________________________________________
plucker-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-list
