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

Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

From: Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:25:56 -0700
Message-ID: <3b31caf90908041525o162371d3n1e040ce5e5b876ae@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej wrote:

> In this case, I believe a solution may be possible which can satisfy
> everyone. Here is my proposal:

First off, thank you for sketching a positive approach for resolving the
issue without recourse to a vote. I hope everyone really seriously
considers meeting in the middle on this one.

> 1) HTML5 will continue to list and advise use of new techniques that
>    can be alternatives to summary="".

Agreed.

> 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 use one of the other techniques when possible and
>    appropriate[...] In other words, rather than focusing on what
>    authors shouldn't do, the spec will focus on what they should do
>    instead.

I would much prefer it if summary="" were simply nonconforming, but in
the interest of moving on to more important things, I can live with
this.

> 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.

Agreed.

> 4) The[...] spec will be changed to avoid disparaging summary in
>    unnecessary ways. For example, describing summary="" only in the
>    "obsolete features" section and not in the "table" section gives
>    the appearance of disparagement[...]

My preference is for summary="" to only be mentioned insofar as it has
UA conformance criteria, but I can live with this too.

> 5) HTML WG will propose a WCAG2 Techniques update to the appropriate
>    working group of WAI (is it PFWG or WCAG WG?) 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.
>
>    (b) I'd like to ask for some official blessing from the HTML WG for
>        this message, since WAI apparently takes official input from
>        Working Groups more seriously than input from individuals.

Agreed.

Thanks again for managing to sketch out a middle ground where we might
actually find consensus on this.


Ted
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 22:26:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT