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

Re: Summary of Thursday's IRC conversation about @summary

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 16:31:04 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0906051631q23b4fc2ctf7f2b279640ae98b@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:14 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
> At 12:22  -0700 5/06/09, John Foliot wrote:
> > It is also important to note that the PF-WG specifically wrote:
> >
> > *        We reject the argument that summary should be removed from the
> > HTML
> > *     specification because it is not implemented on most web sites. We
> > note
> > *  that accessibility is poorly supported on most web sites. The
> > wider
> > *       web is not an example of good practice.
>
> Hm.  I think we've already noted that "failed to establish a cowpath" is not
> a design principle (though I think we can all take it as a cause for concern
> and ask "why?", and if the problem is the specification, see whether we can
> do better.)

Indeed. When something out of HTML4 hasn't accumulated use over the
past decade that HTML4 has been deployed, I think not looking for a
"why" and "do we need to change something" is to close your eyes to
reality.

I do hope that the people advocating @summary has looked into these
questions and come to the conclusion that @summary can not be
improved. However they have unfortunately not provided any information
about which alternatives were looked into and why @summary was deemed
better.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 5 June 2009 23:32:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:38 GMT