W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: ISSUE-92 Change Proposal

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:06:40 -0700
Message-ID: <g2rdd0fbad1004122006naa061ce3y90ff138934b8edc9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I find nothing objectionable in this Change Proposal, and agree that
>>> the example table used in the spec is somewhat contrived and
>>> unrealistic.  The example table given in this Change Proposal seems
>>> more realistic, exhibiting useful complexity without being
>>> overwhelming.
>> On second review, I have to retract my statement that there is
>> "nothing objectionable".  The table itself is generally acceptable as
>> an example of a table.
>> However, I had skipped over the part where the @summary attribute is
>> reintroduced, and given an explanatory paragraph.  That is not
>> relevant to the Issue at hand, and given the current state of the
>> @summary attribute, should be removed.  If @summary is later
>> reintroduced as a valid attribute in HTML, the example may be amended.
> Rather than address this one before @summary, I believe the co-chairs
> should resolve the issues related to @summary, first, and then we can
> revisit this change proposal.
> Co-chairs?

The @summary point seems completely orthogonal to the issue at hand.
I don't believe it's worthwhile holding up the resolution of this
issue over something completely unrelated.

Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2010 03:07:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC