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

Re: ISSUE-92 cleanuptable - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:14:03 -0500
Message-ID: <i2o643cc0271004211014h7ec63ab3id877286aaa6ac287@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have to, reluctantly, protest this one, and also point out the
>> obvious: until there's a determination on table summary, anything
>> related to the table element description is uncertain. Issue 32 blocks
>> Issue 92.
>> My change proposal includes support for @summary. I do so because the
>> arguments against its use have not effectively demonstrated the "harm"
>> of having this attribute.
> The @summary appearing in your example for Issue 92 is not required.
> It can be removed without affecting the suitability of the example
> table for resolving Issue 92.  If @summary is later decided to be
> returned to the language, this example can be revised at that time and
> as a part of resolving Issue 32.
> It seems inappropriate to block issues that are merely tangentially
> related to other issues that one is personally invested in, when the
> resolution of the other issues does not materially effect the
> resolution of the issues at hand.
> ~TJ

My change proposal has to do with replacing the table element section.
A description of summary is part of this. The example includes
summary. We can't pretend that summary has no impact on this work.

When Issue 92 is resolved, it should be resolved in its entirety. We
can't fully resolve Issue 92, until Issue 32 is resolved.

Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2010 17:14:37 UTC

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