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

Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:48:34 -0400
Message-ID: <4A7AC312.5050507@intertwingly.net>
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Steven Faulkner wrote:
>> Hi Sam,
>> I agree that this new wording will suffice for the publication of the 
>> new draft of the spec.
> Thanks!
>> 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.
> Take your time, consider what you would like to recommend.  For now, 
> issue 32 will remain open.  I consider the most likely outcome of 
> today's call to be that Action 128 will get a new target date for when 
> we checkpoint next on this issue.
> If you have suggestions, options available to you include posting to 
> this list, opening a bugzilla report, or directly editing the draft.
> One thing I would suggest is that the the PF WG pursue publishing 
> updated guidelines on how to best to provide an overview of complex 
> tabular data or a brief explanation of that data in the context of 
> HTML5, and to work with the authors of the validator to ensure that the 
> message produced ultimately leads people to that document.  Henri 
> Sivonen is the primary author of the HTML5 validator, and I believe that 
> Mike Smith is also involved in some way with the deployment of this code 
> on the W3C site.

Addendum: it occurs to me that a part of the concern may be that the 
current draft appears to single out the summary attribute.  The solution 
to this may very well be to identify other constructs that could benefit 
from the presentation of guidance.

I'm a big fan of conformance checkers.  My experience is that people 
rarely read, fully comprehend, and internalize specs and guidelines. 
They react much more positively when given targeted advice that (in all 
likelihood) applies to their specific situation.  Given the nature of 
what can be automated, there will inevitably be a few false positives 
and a few false negatives, so we will simply have to find ways to deal 
with that.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 11:49:27 UTC

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