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

Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:22:41 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80908060322u22ddfae2kd6d8b47b9972c38f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Sam,
I agree that this new wording will suffice for the publication of the new
draft of the spec.
But like others do not see this being this as being the wording that will
pass consensus for last call.

I agree that ian's alternative examples are worthwhile, but think that the
use of summary has a place in the range of techniqes on offer.


2009/8/6 Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 2009, at 4:16 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>> Thus, I hope you will reconsider.
>>> I've updated the spec to do what you proposed.
>> Thanks. I read over your changes, and as far as I'm concerned, the new
>> spec text is in line with my compromise proposal.
>> For anyone who would like to check, here's how summary is now defined in
>> the <table> section: <
>> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#attr-table-summary>
>> And the only remaining mention in the "conforming but obsolete features"
>> section is a brief note indicating that the summary attribute gives a
>> warning: <
>> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#conforming-but-obsolete-features>.
> And in diff format:
>  http://tinyurl.com/m9n4jw
>  http://tinyurl.com/kqkopq
> I think this is the best arrangement we can get in terms of a compromise
>> that both sides can live with. I understand people have concerns with
>> various aspects. But I personally do not think I can push the proposal much
>> in either direction without completely losing the support of one side or the
>> other. So I strongly urge everyone to take time and consider whether this is
>> something they can live with. If anyone wants to ask for more concessions,
>> then I don't think I could lend my support such an effort.
> I believe that Maciej is talk long term live with.
> For the moment, I'm focused on a more near term objective: is this
> something good enough for now.  So, if you agree with Maciej that this is
> good enough for the long term clearly you are OK with it for now.  If you
> aren't sure, but feel that it addresses the immediate objection; that;s fine
> too for my purposes.
> If you feel otherwise, please speak up.  I'd like to give people until
> Sunday night to do so, otherwise I will assume that this is the basis for
> the draft that we are going with.
> Regards,
>> Maciej
> - Sam Ruby

with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 10:23:22 UTC

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