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 23:14:46 -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: <4C0FD3C0-29BD-48DE-90B6-64037061E894@apple.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>

On Jul 31, 2009, at 10:18 PM, John Foliot wrote:

>
>> In
>> fact, I've actually attempted to broker compromise changes on
>> summary="" which I'd hoped to be satisfactory to all parties.
>
> I have re-read your notes on this matter - I see no compromise  
> position or
> solution offered (but maybe I missed something - if I did I am sorry  
> for
> that).  I did read something whereby you sought to defend the current
> draft as being, in your opinion, less egregious then earlier  
> versions, but
> I do not see an alternative to my requests or WHAT WG's current  
> position
> that could be considered a compromise.

The editor's former position was that summary="" should be  
nonconforming. Your position (and that of other advocates) was that it  
should be conforming and recommended. I think making it conforming but  
discouraged is a middle ground. In fact, in the past you yourself said  
that the coformance status was a bigger obstacle than what  
recommendation the spec makes, since other people could make and  
follow their own recommendations, but violating conformance would be a  
bigger problem.

Now, maybe you're not 100% satisfied with the current text. I think  
others are dissatisfied in the other direction - they would rather see  
summary="" be a hard conformance error. That is the nature of a  
compromise. But I haven't seen any summary="" advocates acknowledge  
that the change is an improvement. I am disappointed in that.

>
>> Clearly John has not found the changes satisfactory, or even  
>> softened his
>> stance.
>
> I've not seen any proposed changes to consider.

I'm referring to the change from summary="" being nonconforming, to  
being conforming but marked obsolete (thus requiring a warning). Based  
on previous statements and the list of arguments against completely  
omitting summary, I thought this was kind of a big deal. But I haven't  
seen any change in the arguments presented against the current draft,  
or any softening of language used to oppose it.

Building consensus sometimes requires compromise. So far I have not  
seen a lot of willingness to budge from the accessibility faction, or  
even willingness to consider that there might be more than one  
acceptable answer. That makes me feel like it's not a good use of my  
time to propose and advocate middle ground solutions.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 06:15:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:50 UTC