- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:24:15 -0700
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Cc: 'Sam Ruby' <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'Manu Sporny' <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "'Michael(tm) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, 'Anne van Kesteren' <annevk@opera.com>, 'Leif Halvard Silli' <lhs@malform.no>
On Jul 31, 2009, at 5:59 PM, John Foliot wrote: > > My 2 requests are simple: > > Indicate in the current Working Draft that the ultimate fate of > @summary > is an open issue (as opposed to a conformant but obsolete attribute, > which > nobody has agreed to yet). [...] > > More importantly however, is to remove the author guidance that today > explicitly contradicts existing, W3C approved Accessibility Guidance > as > written in WCAG 2. [...] I think it's reasonable for you to pursue these requests. Do you find the current Editor's Draft to be more objectionable on these points than the last published Working Draft? The previous working draft made summary="" entirely nonconforming, and contained accessibility advice on table descriptions contrary to WCAG2. I could understand holding publication if the Editor's Draft had gotten egregiously worse on some particular point, from your point of view. But I don't see the point of delaying publication if things are no worse (and arguably a bit better) than the last Working Draft. Regards, Maciej
Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 01:24:56 UTC