Alan Burlison wrote: > Simon Phipps wrote: > >> With respect, that is not a counter proposal. Given Ceri, Alan, Dan, >> John, Rich and myself all telling you in a short space of time we think >> your proposal is overkill, and given you have rejected all our attempts >> to be constructive, I believe it's reasonable to ask you for a response >> that recognises our input rather than flips us off. > > I've given you a response, you will have to log in once a day. One > mouse click. I haven't seen any reasoned explanation as to why that is > too onerous to be acceptable.
Because, we, as the users find it undesirable? I have to agree with the others here, if you want all other aspects of the site to have stricter enforcement that's great. I think that less stringent requirements for the "wiki-aspect" alone are certainly reasonable, and understandable. I have several websites that I have to use right now that have extremely stringent security requirements and the amount of vexation that causes me is enough to drive me to use other ones instead. While I applaud and appreciate your focus on security, I feel that this is too strong of a requirement. In addition, to me, partially dismissing the concerns raised here by suggesting that a user just use their browser instead to reduce login frustration seems to simply move the real problem from one area to another. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker _______________________________________________ website-discuss mailing list [email protected]
