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 13:29:32 -0700
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, po@trace.wisc.edu, lorettaguarino@google.com
Message-id: <488E793B-6F19-4F63-812F-01919DFC4E1A@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

On Aug 4, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> 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.

Specifically, I'm trying to propose something that could be workable  
as a long-term solution, and that could take us to Last Call,  
regardless of what goes in the Working Draft. It may take longer than  
the WD timeline to work out all the details, so I'm not asking to  
preempt any decisions related to WD publication.

I think that for a solution to take us to Last Call, it needs to have  
at least some support for each "side" of the dispute. It may be that  
some people will not be satisfied by what comes out of that, and we  
still need to have a poll. But I think we're not going to resolve this  
by forcing one side or the other to surrender. So I hope people can  
think in terms of compromise, even if they don't agree with exactly  
what I proposed. If we can't find a basis for compromise, then we'll  
ultimately have to pick between two extreme positions, which will  
likely be polarizing and unpleasant for the Working Group.

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 20:30:12 UTC

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