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

@summary yet again :( Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 07:28:31 +0200
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "John Foliot" <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
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: <op.ux0mlt0bwxe0ny@pc162.lan028.oslo.opera.com>
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 02:00:52 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  
wrote:

>
> 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"?
[...]
> 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.

Actually, I think that rejecting the statement would show poor judgement,  
and that is base in part on who makes it. The world is thus - what you say  
depends on who you are. Google speaks with more authority than me in  
variousareas, and I speak with more authority than [you] in others.

>>> 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 [...]

I don't think that has any material bearing on the substance of John's  
argument.

> Since the draft is not final and remains open to change, it's not too  
> late to
> give your input on this idea.

Indeed, and I think that despite the creation of "facts on the ground" by  
changing the W3C official working draft, this point is important.
[...]

>> 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="".

Wait. You mean that despite nearly *TEN YEARS* of review, nobody bothered  
to do so? Or that the data was given due consideration and rejected?

Either way, it seems that the HTML WG is skating on thin ice arguing that  
somehow it's different, and its decision on something which W3C places  
squarely in the responsibilities of a different group should override the  
'a priori' experts' opinion.

[...]

> What I'd like to understand now is why a "deprecated" summary attribute
> would meet your requirements, but an "obsolete" one would not.

Indeed, this is an important point.

Personally, it seems that the problem with making the attribute 'obsolete'  
is that it is not clear why this implies that authors should not use it.  
Which will lead to 'obsolete' in HTML 5 meaning the same thing as  
'deprecated' in older W3C specs - don't use it unless you are only working  
in the real world (i.e. "Nothing").

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 03:39:59 UTC

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