W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2009

RE: Publishing a new draft (HTML5+RDFa)

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Leif Halvard Silli'" <lhs@malform.no>
Cc: "'Ben Adida'" <ben@adida.net>, "'Manu Sporny'" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'RDFa mailing list'" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01b101ca1179$44e47ba0$cead72e0$@edu>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the Working Group is within its rights to decline to approve
> the publication of a working draft that contains micro-data, or to
> insist that RDFa be included or that micro-data (or the recent change
> to summary) be explicitly marked.
> 
> However, absolutely nobody has step forwarded and requested that any of
> these be done.
> 

Sam,

On July 26th, I asked the editor:

"Meanwhile, I respectfully request that you not impose your personal
opinion on @summary and restore it to a valid and current HTML attribute -
retaining its existing, current status as seen in both HTML4 and XHTML1"
[1]

This would be in keeping with the request and guidance that was formally
submitted to the HTML WG by the PFWG on June 3, 2009 [2]

(I won't spend too much time on Ian's rather dismissive response to either
request)

And so,

*IF* my request to return @summary to a valid conforming (non-obsolete)
attribute - complete with the removal of accessibility guidance that tells
authors not to use @summary (which is currently in direct contradiction
with WCAG 2 Guidance [3][4]) - until such time as this issue is properly
resolve, via an open and transparent process (even if that means going to
a vote), then I will remove my objection in the interest of forward
movement.  I have no objection to the draft specification offering other
means of providing similar functionality, however I would suggest that in
the interest of accessibility that the editor is not the proper person to
provide opinionated guidance on which method is "best" - accessibility is
the W3C chartered domain of WAI and the PFWG.

You say that nobody has stepped forward?  I just did.

JF


[1 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0775.html ]
[2 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0026.html ]
[3 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H73 ]
[4
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20081211/content-struc
ture-separation-programmatic.html ]
Received on Friday, 31 July 2009 00:54:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 31 July 2009 00:54:01 GMT