Murray Maloney wrote: > At 04:41 PM 7/8/2009 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> For these reasons, I think it is helpful to explain the problems with >> summary="", more so than for the other attributes. I think the >> explanation could be either in the section on explanatory information >> for tables, or in the obsolete features section, but either way I >> think it is helpful to provide it. >> >> That being said, I don't really want to micromanage the exact spec >> text. I'm just explaining why I think further explanatory material in >> the spec text is merited. > > I agree that further explanatory text is needed, but I am not so sure > that it needs to be so pejorative. +1. There will be a vote on the status of @summary (and its future). Personally I would prefer if there were no re-jigging of the spec until the @summary vote has been completed. Cheers JoshReceived on Thursday, 9 July 2009 07:21:04 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:41 GMT