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

RE: My position (was RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2)

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 18:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "'Shelley Powers'" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, <judy@w3c.org>, "'Michael\(tm\) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>
Message-ID: <022701ca13d9$ffd4fd60$ff7ef820$@edu>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> 
> I could not find any instances of the term "deprecated" in John's
> diffs. So it doesn't seem like the vote is about that at all. So the
> poll option labels seem actively misleading.

This is true.  Since Maciej explained to me yesterday the difference
between html 4/xhtml1's deprecated/obsolete and html 5's obsolete
(conforming/non-conforming) it became apparent that what I was originally
proposing was not an option in html 5.  Since obsolete but conforming
insists that authors be told to not use an element/attribute, and telling
authors to not use summary directly contradicts current WAI guidance, I
was left with no other option than to restore @summary to conformant
status, to remove the offending author-guidance language.

I earlier today proposed an alternative suggestion that de-links 'obsolete
but conforming' from the requirement to tell authors to *not* use
something, at which point it would be easier to remove the conflicting
language, but leave @summary where it is (an apparent functional
equivalent to deprecated).

But as it stands now, that is apparently not a viable option.

<summary>

Thus the difference between my "respect" Draft and the "WHAT WG" Draft are
pretty simple: @summary is restored to conformant, and the WAI conflicting
author guidance language was removed. 
(this of course leaves open the door of working with WAI to come to a
resolution, but it removes the ability of WHAT WG to dictate to WAI)

</summary> 

I have written ad-nauseum on the justifications I have applied, and  do
not care to revisit all those points here. 

You either agree with the notion that the draft cannot conflict with WAI
and that at the very least accessibility guidance should be arrived at
*with* WAI, and not externally from WAI, or you don't - that's the real
question to me...

JF
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 01:31:31 UTC

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