Thanks Bill. - Aaron
Bill Haneman wrote: > David Bolter wrote: > >> sigh... make that "shouldn't have"... ever had one of those days? >> >> D >> >> >> > Yes :-) > > Folks, the truth is I just don't know/remember at the moment, without > digging deep into the toolkits. I'm on leave today and this weekend, so > can't be all that useful until Monday. I'll try to figure out, among > other things, what this was supposed to mean in Java-land, because a > number of states including the ones under current discussion were a > legacy inherited from javax.accessibility. Maybe Peter K. knows? > > I agree that we shouldn't drag useless stuff around forever, but my > concern is that just because something doesn't make sense to myself and > you guys at this moment, it doesn't mean that it wasn't useful and > sensible when originally mooted. Now seems like a good time to nail it > down (and document it better than it was apparently documented before). > > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel > > _______________________________________________ Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel
