- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:55:45 -0700
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Cc: 'Sam Ruby' <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, "'Michael(tm) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, judy@w3c.org, 'Janina Sajka' <janina@rednote.net>
On Aug 2, 2009, at 4:02 PM, John Foliot wrote: > > Frankly I really don't care about @summary enough to be spending all > this > time and effort on: it is an open action item at the HTML WG (Issue > 32), > that has been making its way through process. I would abide by any > decision reached that way. I take serious umbrage however with the > fact > that the current editor sees fit to pre-ordain the result, and > moreover > tell content authors to ignore existing WAI guidance. This is simply a misunderstanding of the process. The draft does not pre-ordain a result, it's a proposal to the Working Group. The issue remains open, and the Editor specifically asked for a vote. So far we've failed to hold a vote because no one has provided suitable text. The lack of final decision is now disrupting the working group. I would like to see this issue definitively resolved. Since no one has proposed suitable polling text for the actual summary="" issue so far, I volunteer to do so. If the chairs are ok with me doing it, I can have polling text ready by Friday at the latest that I believe most people will find acceptable. In the meantime, I think we should either publish a Working Draft as is, and be ready to republish after the summary="" issue is resolved, or wait to publish until we've resolved the summary issue. I think the desire to publish quickly to meet the heartbeat requirement, combined with the desire to tie this and other issues to publication, is not conducive to good decision making. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 00:56:29 UTC