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

RE: [html] Summary draft

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Cynthia Shelly'" <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>, <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <022501ca35c2$56b8a730$0429f590$@edu>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> >
> >
> > Overall comment: John, please recall that you personally signed off
> on
> > the text that is currently in the Editor's Draft. You are free to
> change
> > your mind, and express a preference for different text. But I suggest
> > that you dial down the outrage over text that you at one time
> personally
> > reviewed and approved. How about a little less all-caps and "one
> person"
> > rhetoric? (I do appreciate your work to more clearly express the
> issues
> > and file bugs.)
> 
> Point of order: the only thing John agreed to was to withdraw his draft
> "at this time", with the expectation that the discussions "are on-going
> and will continue" and that this action "*did not* close Issue 32, and
> it is important for all to realize that point."
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0182.html 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0286.html 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0362.html

Thank you Sam for digging out the emails I was going to reference.  In
particular, I point to the final email (0362.html), where I also wrote:

	"After some discussion and protocol (and a healthy dash of
diplomacy by
Maciej), the advisory text was removed from the Draft - producing a more
neutral stance (for now!) and WCAG / WAI / PFWG have been asked to provide
workable advisory to associate to @summary, which they are actively
working on. The Attribute has (for now!) been restored to fully conformant
so as to not confuse authors who currently look to WCAG's Techniques for
Success Criteria."

Cynthia's note, and draft text, is the culmination of that WAI/PFWG work. 

*****

In the second email that Sam references (0286.html), I wrote:

	"While "Section 12 - Obsolete features" no longer lists @summary
as
obsolete, it does contain the following text:
	
	"The summary attribute, defined in the table section, will also
trigger a warning."
		(
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#conforming-but-obsolete
-features )

At this time, the 'warning' remains undefined and unwritten.  *If*
@summary is ultimately deemed obsolete but conformant (again, simply
another undecided possibility at this time) then this 'warning language'
will need to be determined (hopefully by consensus, and not by proxy)"


A review today of http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/
confirms that it still states: "Note: The summary attribute, defined in
the table section, will also trigger a warning.", still without the
warning being articulated.  Again, Cynthia's draft text is an attempt to
clarify this issue, by floating draft text that originates via PFWG, as
previously agreed - "(hopefully by consensus, and not by proxy)".

Maciej, this is what I "personally signed off" on in good faith, after
numerous emails hashed out what the *issues* were - and front and center
was that the appropriate place for accessible author guidance should first
rest with WAI/PFWG.

*****

Finally, a multitude of separate emails where authored during the period
of July 30 - Aug 6th (not also counting earlier emails) that discussed
pretty much all of the issues surrounding @summary in excruciating detail.
Ian knows full well what my (and others') issues are/were, as they were
discussed, point-by-point in an August 1st email exchange between Ian and
myself here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0061.html There is
also the ESW Wiki entry here:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE?highlight=%28summary%29 and
the STILL OPEN HTML Issue 32 in the WG Issue Tracker here:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/32 

Yet today, Ian writes to say that he doesn't understand.  Either he
doesn't read the emails he claims he reads, or he is a complete idiot, or
he is simply being petulant and an obstructionist.  So pardon me if my
frustration here appears somewhat 'out of check'.

So let's look at what Cynthia has offered
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0553.html],
understanding that it is attempting to "fill in the holes" that making
@summary fully conformant requires, and that suggests the educational
"warning" that should emerge from conformance checkers when an author uses
@summary - all things that were agreed to in the first week of August. 

If Ian today still truly does not understand, then he is free to excuse
himself from the deliberations and discussion, and we can only trust that
the chairs will instruct that he edit into the specification the outcome
of the informed discussion from those that *do* understand the issues,
which hopefully will now come forth. 

JF
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 05:07:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:08 UTC