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 08:52:17 -0400
Message-ID: <4A422181.7050609@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>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> 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
>>>> |  > *	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.
> 
> Is that relevant to issues of backwards-compatibility? I was under the 
> impression that it was not. I wasn't trying to ignore that or selectively 
> chose a point here.

Search for "backward compatibility" here:

http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE#head-222af24a2b1dcdc3afe5e3036551b70f99cf232c

It is entirely possible that the two of you are using this term in 
different ways -- you narrowly concerning only browser vendors, and 
Laura inclusively to include authoring tools.

>>>> 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.
> 
> If UAs do nothing with summary="", it won't have any effect on 
> accessibility. So unless I'm misundertanding something fundamental, this 
> is false.

But you didn't say "The UAs are the ultimate gatekeepers".  You said 
"Browser Vendors".  In any case, Mike Smith correctly noted[1] that "... 
they're certainly not the ultimate gatekeepers as far as decisions about 
document conformance."

>> 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.
> 
> This is encouraging; however, it seems that Laura does not share your 
> view, so it would be helpful is Laura could explain why.

She might not, and her responding may be helpful; but at this point I 
will add that your responses to me on this thread reinforce the notion 
that you are "making every effort to look right no matter what the facts
may be."

> Cheers,

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0652.html
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2009 12:53:05 GMT

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