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

Re: Things in HTML that I disagree with (Was: evidence of harm)

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:19:58 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270906251519u4745ea87xe1852a9b64546d54@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Shelley Powers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I would like to see how some of these arguments were coached. Could
>> >> you point out in whatever mailing list is appropriate, the arguments
>> >> discussing, say keeping the div element?
>> >
>> > I would love to, but I really don't have the bandwidth to do that. If
>> > anyone would like to volunteer to document such discussions, I'd be
>> > happy to advise. I really would love it if we could have a wiki or
>> > something that documented the discussions behind all the decisions in
>> > the spec so far. Personally though, I feel I must focus on taking
>> > HTML5 forward and not on the equally large task of documenting how it
>> > got where it is.
>> Then, especially in comparison to your statement about you strongly
>> disagreeing with the microdata section, we have to assume that no, there
>> was never a situation where you vehemently opposed an addition (or
>> deletion) from the HTML5 spec, but allowed the working group to override
>> your objections.
> I listed a number of cases where that was the case. I understand that you
> may not believe me, but if you think I am lying then I can't help you. I'm
> not going to do mailing list archeology that you could equally well do
> yourself just because you imply that I am being untruthful.

No, I don't believe you're lying. But I can't helping thinking if we
were to look at this scenarios, we would find out you weren't as
vehemently against the decision, as you believe you are.

The same thing happened with the use cases, which you then used to
create the microdata section. You say most of the use cases weren't
good, we asked for examples of what makes a good use case, so that we
could create new use cases, accordingly, and you can't provide any.
You don't have time. The future of the web is in your hands. And so

Sorry, Ian, but to be blunt, but screw that. I don't think we're being
unreasonable to ask what was your justification for including some of
the sections you did include. It's just as fair as your continuing
criticism and push back of @summary.

>> >> Yes, the web is a messy place. I'm surprised that you're willing to
>> >> continue on as sole author of HTML 5, if you're so unhappy with the
>> >> state of the web, and the markup you're being forced to live with.
>> >
>> > Making the Web better is more important than my own personal sense of
>> > aethetics.
>> But you are applying your own personal sense of aesthetics in your work.
>> You may not think you are, but every author does. The wise author is
>> aware of this, and acts accordingly.
> Naturally. I don't think anyone suggested that I do not.
>> Frankly, in my opinion, your sense of aesthetics shows in your pushback
>> against @summary. You specify it causes "harm", but nobody has proved
>> that it actually causes "harm".
> It has been shown that:
>  - in many cases where summary="" attributes are present on non-layout
>   tables, they have bogus values that are less useful to users of ATs
>   than no value at all. This harms AT users.

How? How are these "harming" the AT users? The tables were,
themselves, crap. They were layout tables. How, then, did the use of
@summary somehow make these inappropriately used html tables

More importantly, how many AT users have come forward and said, this
attribute is harming us?


>  - in the few cases where summary="" values are actually useful, they
>   would be useful to all users, not just AT users, but using summary=""
>   means the data is hidden from non-AT users. This harms non-AT users.
> The data for this has been repeatedly documented on this list.

Data where summary isn't used correctly, used on html tables, which
were themselves not being used correctly.

But there's no proof of "harm". That's not an unfair request to make.
Where is the proof of harm?


> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 22:20:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:47 UTC