Hi, Folks-
Jonas Sicking wrote (on 6/12/08 2:16 PM):
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jun 12, 2008, at 3:20 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:41:57 +0200, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Sunava Dutta wrote:
Try this link instead: http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/xdsecuritywp
Could you forward the paper to the list? (Preferably as plain text,
though HTML or PDF would do in a pinch.)
I second this request. Plain text e-mails are much easier to deal with.
Besides convenience, feedback to the public list should not be behind
a clickwrap license in principle.
Agreed. I have never run into a situation in my work where I've had to
agree to a license like this. It is something we at mozilla on principal
doesn't do due to our open nature. I can't do something that excludes
our community from participating.
I am investigating whether W3C has a specific policy on it, but I'd like
to chime in personally that I agree with all of the above comments, for
all the same reasons.
In addition, it makes a more transparent trail for future
spec-archeology, investigating why a particular decision was made. In
this spirit, I'd rather it were not a PDF, but an HTML or plain-text
version.
Thanks-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, WebApps, SVG, and CDF
