[Accessibility] Re: Q

[Olaf Schmidt]

Hi!

I am sorry that I caused these off-topic mails to this mailing list, but our 
working group will be in a difficult position if the LSB and KDE decide to 
part ways, so I had to say something.

Thanks to all of you for explaining the LSB's view on it. I hope you can also 
understand why the current approach of the LSB is not acceptable for KDE.

I trust you that you don't want to cause harm for KDE. There are plausible 
reasons for the license criteria. There are plausible reasons for the plan to 
standardise toolkits. There are plausible reasons for reinterpreting "best 
practise" to a non-superlative meaning. The result of these three decisions 
is that the LSB has made itself a very strong political factor in the 
KDE/Gnome debate.

Of course this political factor is already used as a powerful weapon by those 
Gnome advocates who love to fight toolkit wars. It would have been naive to 
expect otherwise.  Of course this is causing harm to KDE, and of course this 
is destroying the LSB's credibility.

Please don't shot the messenger.

I am simply explaining how the vast majority of KDE developers feel about the 
LSB and about standardisation in general. I am also relaying how the LSB's 
approach is interpreted by Gnome advocates. Both groups interpret the LSB's 
decisions as favouring one desktop.

It is always problematic to include one library in a version of a standard 
while an equally popular alternative is blocked. I really hope the LSB 
reconsiders its approach to avoid harm to both KDE and to the LSB's 
credibility.

This will probably be my last mail on this subject to this list. Sorry again 
for this off-topic thread. I could not stay silent on such an important 
topic.

Olaf