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 10:11:00 -0400
To: "'John Foliot'" <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02a101ca150d$64b19c00$2e14d400$@com>
John -

Thanks! That clarification makes sense; the difference between adhering to
(as I thought you meant) and not contradicting is subtle, but important.

J.Ja

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of John Foliot
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:39 AM
> To: 'Justin James'; 'Ian Hickson'; 'Sam Ruby'
> Cc: 'HTML WG'
> Subject: RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2
> 
> Justin James wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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).
> 
> I simply want the draft to *not* contradict WAI.  I have consistently
> suggested that the status of @summary is not the issue, it is the
> contradictory language that accompanies the 'obsolete but conformant'
> status that tells authors to not use summary that is the current issue,
> as
> it undermines WCAG and WAI.
> 
> I have repeatedly stated that removing that text would remove my
> objection, but apparently Ian cannot see his way to doing that, because
> he
> has 'data' (failing to recognize that the problem has NOTHING to do
> with
> data)
> 
> JF
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 14:11:54 UTC

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