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

Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:58:15 -0700
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <2BD3BC46-BAC4-4CB4-AD4F-FFEF2A26C543@apple.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Hi Shelley,

On Aug 4, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> This is not flaming. This is me disagreeing with your solution.

It looks to me like you focused on the parts of the proposal you most  
disagree with, and tried to cast them in as negative a light as  
possible. Could you read over John's statement of agreement and see  
if, like him, you can find some things to support and agree with, and  
to maybe see in a positive light? And then maybe think about whether  
it's worth fighting tooth and nail over the remaining distance to your  
ideal position? To get to consensus, we have to find ways to satisfy  
our most important goals, and in the process be willing to concede on  
less important points.

It's your right to be unwilling to concede anything, and instead dig  
in your heels, but I humbly suggest that this will not help us reach  
consensus as a group. We've spent over a year digging in our heels and  
butting heads over this issue. It hasn't brought us any kind of  
resolution. So let's try something else.


> You started out providing what I felt were good directions in how to
> differentiate between the other examples and summary, but then you
> still include summary as "obsolete but conforming", which will
> generate a warning (or error, not sure which) in validators.

What I suggested is specifically a warning, not an error. And I'm  
suggesting the warning should lead authors to consider other  
techniques, not tell them that they can't or shouldn't use summary. I  
didn't say anything about "obsolete but conforming" status, because to  
me the category label is unimportant. John says the status label is  
not very important to him either. Let's see if anyone else finds it to  
be a showstopper.

> What you've done, though, is create confusion for people who have used
> summary, correctly, in the past, when they're moving to HTML 5.
> They'll get warnings, but they're using summary correctly -- can you
> imagine the complications this could cause? And people will be getting
> warnings when they use it correctly in new documents, too.

I think an advisory warning that mentions other alternatives, and  
considerations for using them, would not create confusion. Instead, it  
would improve understanding. We know there is confusion around summary  
already, this seems like a way we could reduce confusion.

>
> I do not agree with making summary "obsolete but conforming" or
> specifically highlighting it for warning. And I'm not following any
> mandate, other than my own judgment of what's right or not. I don't
> think this is the right approach.

If you're open to the possibility of compromise, and if after thinking  
over John's comments and my comments you still think there's a  
showstopper, then we can see if there's changes that could lead to a  
broader base of support. Specifically, think about what you'd be  
willing to concede from your position in exchange for concessions on  
other points. But if you're not open to compromise, then I'm not sure  
there is anything I can do for you. I'm not going to ask anyone to  
give up 100% of their position. Pushing people to fully surrender  
their position has been failing for over a year now, so I'm trying  
something else.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 19:58:56 UTC

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