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

RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2

From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 01:31:51 -0400
To: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <020701ca14c4$df080230$9d180690$@com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Ian Hickson
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 6:17 PM
> To: Sam Ruby
> Cc: HTML WG
> Subject: Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2
> 
> 
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> > Please demonstrate that you do understand John's issue.  You may
> > disagree with it -- and that is fair, but please demonstrate that you
> > understand it.
> 
> I don't understand it. Can _you_ explain it to me? (I've read all of
> John's e-mails, and attempted to discuss this with him, but failed to
> understand the issue that way.)

Ian -

What John wants (to the best of my understanding) is for the draft to
reflect the WCAG/WAI documents/findings/recommendations (it's not quite
clear to me what the formal status of their guidance on @summary is). His
stance is that since they are the experts according to W3C, it is HTML's job
to take their suggestions and implement them. He asserts that W3C process is
for other groups to adhere to their guidance. If anyone disagrees with their
recommendations, they need to take it up with WCAG/PFWG/WAI (whoever it is)
and wait for them to spend time looking at the new data and make new
documents.

John, is this an accurate summary of your position?

J.Ja
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 05:32:35 GMT

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