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

Re: Issue 32 and Issue 93 dependency

From: Shelley Powers <shelleypowers@burningbird.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:08:25 -0600
Message-ID: <4B86F4D9.5000003@burningbird.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Feb 25, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Maciej, can you tell if the group is specifically focusing on details 
>> element as a replacement? Or if it's going some other direction, such 
>> as summary element? I think you were in the phone conference, and 
>> minutes are so hard to decipher.
>
> I was not in the Accessibility TF telecon. The information I am 
> reporting is from the HTML WG telecon, where the Accessibility TF gave 
> a status update. Perhaps someone from the Accessibility TF can give 
> more details.
>

Thanks. I hope someone does.

>> The reason I ask is that I'm trying to decide how I should write up 
>> my proposal on Issue 93, and whether I should encompass 
>> details-as-new-summary in my argument. I can update my change 
>> proposal afterwards, but I'd really like to present more or less a 
>> final work by the end of March.
>
> My impression as an observer is that some Accessibility TF members are 
> enthusiastic about the idea of using <details> in particular or 
> elements in general (as opposed to attributes) for 
> accessibility-related information. Others seem to dislike the idea. I 
> don't think there is consensus at this time, so it's hard to predict 
> what will emerge.
>
True.

>> If it's still open as a possibility, than I'll also include the use 
>> of the element as a summary attribute replacement in my argument, and 
>> our issues are still cross-dependent.
>
> I think it would be reasonable to cover that possibility, regardless 
> of progress on ISSUE-32.
>
>> Also, what's the date when the Issue 32 change proposal will be 
>> submitted to this group? You have n/a, and that doesn't help me 
>> figure out what I need to do.
>
> Reload, it should say March 25. 
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-032>
>

Many thanks. Based on this date, I can update my proposal and still get 
it to the HTML WG in time. Good. It would be nice to have everything on 
the table so we can finally resolve all of these items.
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>

Shelley
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 22:09:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:02 GMT