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

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

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 05:34:04 +0200
Message-ID: <4A765AAC.1050705@lachy.id.au>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: 'Sam Ruby' <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'W3C WAI-XTECH' <wai-xtech@w3.org>
John Foliot wrote:
> 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)

 From my perspective, it seems that, despite knowing that the issue will 
remain open and that any outcome is possible in the future, your 
motivation for taking this route is to circumvent the process that has 
so far been applied to every other feature either added to or rejected 
from the spec.

What I do not understand is why it is so important for you to achieve 
this minor victory of having @summary at least temporarily reinstated 
now knowing full well that it stands every chance of being overturned 
based on new evidence in a subsequent draft once this issue really is 
resolved.  Likewise, the text in Hixie's current draft also stands equal 
chance of being overturned based on new evidence.

So far, it seems you've done a lot of complaining about how you claim 
the draft simply reflects Hixie's own opinion, but yet don't seem to 
consider it hypocritical that the draft you have proposed merely 
reflects your personal opinion.

Personally, it is of little concern to me in what state the summary 
attribute is in the upcoming Working Draft. I believe it is more 
important continue investigating the issue in terms of research and 
evidence, rather than bickering about what one Working Draft, published 
solely to meet the heartbeat requirement, says, and using subversive 
tactics to get your way.

> 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...

In this case, I do agree with you that we should be working with WAI to 
resolve any conflicts between HTML5 and the advisory techniques from 
WCAG2.  But I believe it is the WCAG2 Tecniques note that needs to be 
updated to suit the features available HTML5, rather than having HTML5 
comply with advice designed for prior versions of HTML, espeically 
without irrefutable evidence that such advice really is optimal.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 03:34:47 UTC

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