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

Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 14:41:17 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270908041241s73d21577yca77f1fc73e73773@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, po@trace.wisc.edu, lorettaguarino@google.com
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Maciej Stachowiak<mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 4, 2009, at 12:02 PM, John Foliot wrote:
>
>
> 2) HTML5 will not make any flat direct statements that summary=""
>
> shouldn't or can't be used. Instead, it will say that authors SHOULD
>
> <del>use</del> <ins>consider using</ins> (??)
>
> "consider using" or "strongly consider using" would be ok by me.
>
> (as I re-read my response before hitting submit, I would like to suggest
> that this also be the model/pattern for other difficult 'contradictions':
> @longdesc, headers/id, Integration of WAI-ARIA into HTML5, etc.  I do not
> hinge my support of this proposal on that suggestion, but ask that readers
> consider it fully)
>
> For now, I suggest we take things one issue at a time. We may be able to
> find compromise resolutions to other issues, perhaps using a similar model
> or perhaps a different one. Let's take it case by case. (For the record, I
> should state that headers is fully conforming and in no way deprecated in
> HTML5, so I see that particular issue as fully resolved already).
>
>
> 3) HTML5 will continue to include a mandatory warning for summary="".
>
> The purpose is not to completely prevent authors from using
>
> summary="", but rather to bring alternatives to their attention, as
>
> described above.
>
> Retaining 'obsolete but conformant' status?  Since I interpret this as a
> functional equivalent to deprecated (mid-way on a continuum) I neither
> agree or disagree... it is not a show stopper for me (personally).
>
> I personally think a category label like "obsolete but conformant" or
> "deprecated" is not really important to the core issues here. So I don't
> care and I'm happy to leave categories like this to editorial discretion. If
> you think it's not very important either, then let's leave it to editor's
> discretion. If anyone thinks the label is a very important issue, but
> otherwise buys into this proposal, then we can negotiate.
>
> to better reflect HTML5
>
> features for describing tables. I can draft a message to communicate
>
> this, but I'd like to request:
>
>     (a) John Foliot as a co-signer (assuming he agrees with the
>
> language), since he said he'd support an effort to update WCAG2, and
>
> I'd like to make clear that this is a coordination effort, not an
>
> attempt to pick a fight.
>
> I have offered this before, and continue to do so today.  I place a huge
> value on the word 'cooperation'.
>
> OK, let's pursue this offline and come up with some language to present to
> the WG. I'll ping you later today or tomorrow, for now I want to see if we
> can get the WG on board with this proposal.
>
> I'd particularly like to hear from John Foliot and Ian Hickson whether
>
> this would be a satisfactory outcome.
>
> To be formal, I support this initiative fully.  Thank you Maciej.
>
> Thanks, John. I'm glad that you are open to a compromise approach.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>

OK, to be more forceful -- this isn't a small group of you, doing your
own thing, while the rest of us are dismissed as so much noise.

This is not a done deal, and this compromise will not occur without
incurring a formal objection, since this is the only way I can get
acknowledgment of my concerns.


Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 19:42:04 UTC

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