- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:58:45 -0400
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, "'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>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > 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. This is not a matter of delay. Ignoring other drafts that may not be in consideration, there apparently will be two drafts ready by sometime Monday-ish. If Ian is not predisposed to consider the request that John has proposed and John has not withdrawn his request, there will be a poll. Based on the results of that poll, one or both drafts will be published. > Regards, > Maciej - Sam Ruby
Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 02:00:04 UTC