W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2009

Re: Request to Strengthen the HTML5 Accessibility Design Principle

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:35:17 -0400
Message-ID: <4A420F75.9050204@intertwingly.net>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Catherine Roy <ecrire@catherine-roy.net>, Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, Philip TAYLOR <p.taylor@rhul.ac.uk>, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>, Roger Johansson <roger@456bereastreet.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
- public-html
+ www-archive

Ian Hickson wrote:
> 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?

The fact that summary is non-conforming.

>> Another, more recent, example is "The browser vendors are the ultimate 
>> gatekeepers, of course".
> 
> What points does this ignore? I don't understand.

The fact that no behavior is being asked of the browser vendors.

> (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.)

The remainder of my email was intended to demonstrate what I thought 
would have been a response more conducive to continuing a dialog; my 
preference as chair is to minimize the times when I actively take a 
position myself.

Ian, you produce (and consume!) an immense amount of material.  The fact 
that I was able to find something in the one email that you cited which 
might be construed by some as being /incomplete/ (as opposed to *wrong*) 
is not surprising.

Meanwhile, I failed to be explicit.  The fact that I did not comment on 
the remainder of the post you cited is an indication that I believe that 
it did further the dialog.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 11:36:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:25 GMT