W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:24:15 -0700
Cc: 'Sam Ruby' <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'Manu Sporny' <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "'Michael(tm) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, 'Anne van Kesteren' <annevk@opera.com>, 'Leif Halvard Silli' <lhs@malform.no>
Message-id: <8870A8CE-8E14-4322-99D6-41B219733816@apple.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>

On Jul 31, 2009, at 5:59 PM, John Foliot wrote:

>
> My 2 requests are simple:
>
> Indicate in the current Working Draft that the ultimate fate of  
> @summary
> is an open issue (as opposed to a conformant but obsolete attribute,  
> which
> nobody has agreed to yet). [...]
>
> More importantly however, is to remove the author guidance that today
> explicitly contradicts existing, W3C approved Accessibility Guidance  
> as
> written in WCAG 2.  [...]

I think it's reasonable for you to pursue these requests. Do you find  
the current Editor's Draft to be more objectionable on these points  
than the last published Working Draft? The previous working draft made  
summary="" entirely nonconforming, and contained accessibility advice  
on table descriptions contrary to WCAG2. I could understand holding  
publication if the Editor's Draft had gotten egregiously worse on some  
particular point, from your point of view. But I don't see the point  
of delaying publication if things are no worse (and arguably a bit  
better) than the last Working Draft.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 01:24:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT