- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:47:29 -0800
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: john@netpurgatory.com, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:17 PM, John C. Vernaleo <john@netpurgatory.com> > wrote: >>> Which part is baloney? The part where deaf people get to enjoy >>> Hamlet, or the part where English professors get to critique it? >>> >>> >>> the part where DRM/content protection is equated with intentionally >>> denying access to impaired users >>> >>> >>> the argument ian is making is akin to saying that use of https is >>> intentionally denying access to hackers >>> >>> >> >> Other than disagreeing with your use of the word hacker, isn't that >> exactly why most people use https? > > > sorry, wrong analogy on my part, i should have said denying access to > impaired users; > > the point is that DRM/CP has nothing to do with content access with respect > to impaired users Hixie's analogy was that inaccessible tools are to disabled users as DRM is to legal-but-unlicensed users. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 22:48:16 UTC