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

Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 06:24:55 -0400
Message-ID: <4A780C77.60006@intertwingly.net>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, John Foliot wrote:
>> Ian Hickson 
>>> I think I may be starting to understand your position.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that for you, it is more important that HTML5 not 
>>> contradict other W3C specifications, than it be that HTML5 address 
>>> accessibility problems with the HTML language?
>> In a nutshell:  HTML WG's "job" is to write a technical spec.  WAI's 
>> "job" is to provide authoring guidance regarding accessibility issues. 
>> [...] You needs to stop contradicting WAI, even if you have proof that 
>> WAI might need to update their guidance [...]
> 
> So yes? For you, it is more important that HTML5 not contradict other W3C 
> documents, than for HTML5 to address accessibility problems with HTML?

I view this issue similarly to how Roy does[1].  And like him, I have no 
opinion on the value of summary.

It summary obsolete?  Not if it is actively being advocated and 
implemented.  Is that advocation and implementation misguided?  Irrelevant.

To put it even more succinctly: you can try to get a representative set 
of browser vendors into the same (virtual) room, but you can't get them 
to agree on a codec.  You can't even get a set of representative authors 
into a room.

So, yes, for me it is more important for HTML5 to document how the 
language is actually being used than it is to write a work of fiction 
that in some ideal world other than the one that we are living in would 
somehow be better.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0132.html
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 10:25:38 UTC

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