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

Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:11:54 -0400
Message-ID: <4A78960A.8000909@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, po@trace.wisc.edu, lorettaguarino@google.com
Shelley Powers wrote:
> 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.

I'll note that Maciej said "language to present to the WG".

It was quite clear to me (even without an official nose count) that 
there were at least three people (including John) supporting what 
originally was John's objection.

I will say that I welcome this initiate.  And that I agree with 
Shelley's point: even if John is satisfied by Maciej's approach, it is 
true that others may not be... and poll may still be required.

For the moment, what I am focused on is what wording will go into the 
published Working Draft at this time.

> Shelley

- Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 20:12:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:49 UTC