On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > > I presume, from your e-mail, that you do not consider this to be > > debate: > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0173.html > > > > Could you elaborate on why? > > I believe that the following: > > | > * We need summary for backward compatibility. > | > | HTML5 supports implementing the summary="" attribute for backwards > | compatibility as currently written. > > ... is an example of what Laura describes as "selectively choosing those > points in a subject which happen to favor a position, while ignoring the > rest". What were the points that were ignored here? > Another, more recent, example is "The browser vendors are the ultimate > gatekeepers, of course". What points does this ignore? I don't understand. (I've filed the remainder of your e-mail with other summary feedback; I'd like to focus on trying to understand exactly what I'm doing wrong before responding, since there's no point we responding if the way I do so is wrong.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 11:16:12 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:48:49 GMT