Thanks. Your request makes perfect sense and we're working on getting this out.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Cindy Sue Causey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:56 AM > To: Chris Wilson > Cc: Ian Hickson; Sunava Dutta; Arthur Barstow; Marc Silbey; public- > webapps; Eric Lawrence; David Ross; Mark Shlimovich (SWI); Doug > Stamper; Zhenbin Xu; Michael Champion > Subject: Re: [NOT] Microsoft's feedback on XHR2 > > Hi.. > > *Most respectfully*.. > > Could you then, or perhaps someone else on behalf of Microsoft, > provide an accessible alternative for those of us participating who > have cognitive disabilities..? > > It would be my most humble observation followed by presumption that > this would be, *in part*, Ian's purpose in providing a smaller version > of what was originally submitted for review.. Providing readily > available [talking points or table of contents] that lead to the then > expanded supportive materials would help accomplish this request.. > > Thank you so much in advance whichever you decide (so as to save > chatter from my end on the list).. > > Peace and best wishes from Talking Rock.. :) > > Cindy Sue > > - :: - > CindySueCausey.blogspot.com > www.ButterflyBytes.com > Georgia Voices That Count, 2005 > Talking Rock, GA, USA > > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Chris Wilson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > No. > > > > I understand why you might like to edit our feedback, Ian, but your > edit does not, in fact, represent Microsoft's feedback on cross-domain. > What you call "redacting background material" I call "removing > principles such that remaining points might seem unprincipled." The > members of the WG (and the public) are welcome to draw their own > conclusions from our statements; I am NOT willing to have you be the > one who draws their conclusions for them. > > > > As every email software package I'm aware of can handle HTML and > text, and most of them can do an automatic translation between the two > of them, I'll ask you again to not editorialize on Microsoft's motives > or actions for the group. Particularly when you are redacting the very > principles at issue.
