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

Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 17:00:52 -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>
Message-id: <2CEAEB3E-94DC-49D0-838D-B7322887E145@apple.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>

On Aug 1, 2009, at 10:35 AM, John Foliot wrote:

>
> How would WHAT WG and Apple feel if the W3C PFWG issued an official
> statement that suggested that "...using <canvas> today would directly
> place content authors in legal jeopardy of Human Rights challenges  
> around
> the world"? (This is as equally a valid opinion as "@summary harms
> accessibility" - it is in fact based upon interpretation of facts and
> understanding of subject matter context).  I'm sure that HTML WG,  
> WHAT WG
> and Apple would all feel that WAI PFWG was meddling in an area that  
> was
> outside of their responsibility, and was prejudicing their current
> efforts.  Walk a mile in the others shoes Maciej...

PFWG is perfectly entitled to make any non-normative recommendation it  
wants about how best to deliver accessible content on the Web. I think  
the particular statement you proposed would show poor judgment, but  
that has nothing to do with who is making it.

>
>>
>> I'm referring to the change from summary="" being nonconforming, to
>> being conforming but marked obsolete (thus requiring a warning).
>
> If this had been floated as a discussion point, if it had been  
> examined as
> a potential mid-way point via the channels we are told to use (html- 
> public
> mailing list), then there would have been dialog.  The problem here is
> that we weren't talked with, we've been talked to; this is Ian's  
> idea of
> compromise, but compromise requires agreement on both sides, and  
> that has
> never happened, because the opportunity to agree or disagree was  
> removed
> from the equation.

Actually, I'm the one who suggested this change, not Ian. Ian  
reluctantly agreed to my proposal, but I didn't see any reply at the  
time from the stronger advocates of summary="". Since the draft is not  
final and remains open to change, it's not too late to give your input  
on this idea.

If you think the change is not helpful, then please explain why. Don't  
just complain about not being sufficiently consulted - I'm consulting  
you (and your colleagues) now.


>  It's like saying I will soften the statement from
> above to read: "...using <canvas> today *MIGHT* directly place content
> authors in legal jeopardy of Human Rights challenges" - that's a
> compromise position too, but is it acceptable?

I'm more interested in whether such a statement is true than who is  
making it.


> Here's another compromise proposal: make @summary conformant but
> deprecated (not obsolete), and remove author instruction that tells
> authors not to use @summary as this directly contradicts WCAG 2.

Thanks for making an alternate proposal. What do you think is the  
substantial difference between "deprecated" and "obsolete" status? To  
me they seem like pretty much the same thing. It's allowed, but not  
recommended.

> This position sunsets @summary (WHAT WG's desire), while respecting  
> the current
> WCAG 2 document that was arrived at via *years* of discussion and  
> review.
> If WHAT WG/HTML WG wishes to approach WAI PFWG with the suggestion of
> revising guidance surrounding @summary, based upon the evidence they  
> have
> collected, then I am sure that PFWG would listen attentively and  
> take the
> request seriously - and I would advocate just as loudly then to do  
> so as I
> am now for acceptance of W3C protocol. *This* is how the W3C is  
> supposed
> to work.

This is a good idea. Someone should propose a change to WCAG2 based on  
the data collected on summary="".

>
>> That makes me feel like it's not a good use of my
>> time to propose and advocate middle ground solutions.
>
> Maciej, you have indeed engaged in dialog and I appreciate that  
> fact.  I
> have tried to be even tempered and honest here, and hope that you can
> appreciate that too.

I do appreciate it. And I appreciate that you made an alternate  
compromise proposal. What I'd like to understand now is why a  
"deprecated" summary attribute would meet your requirements, but an  
"obsolete" one would not. Is it just the particular word and how  
judgmental it sounds? Or do you see some other difference?

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 00:01:35 GMT

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