- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:14:46 -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 10:18 PM, John Foliot wrote: > >> In >> fact, I've actually attempted to broker compromise changes on >> summary="" which I'd hoped to be satisfactory to all parties. > > I have re-read your notes on this matter - I see no compromise > position or > solution offered (but maybe I missed something - if I did I am sorry > for > that). I did read something whereby you sought to defend the current > draft as being, in your opinion, less egregious then earlier > versions, but > I do not see an alternative to my requests or WHAT WG's current > position > that could be considered a compromise. The editor's former position was that summary="" should be nonconforming. Your position (and that of other advocates) was that it should be conforming and recommended. I think making it conforming but discouraged is a middle ground. In fact, in the past you yourself said that the coformance status was a bigger obstacle than what recommendation the spec makes, since other people could make and follow their own recommendations, but violating conformance would be a bigger problem. Now, maybe you're not 100% satisfied with the current text. I think others are dissatisfied in the other direction - they would rather see summary="" be a hard conformance error. That is the nature of a compromise. But I haven't seen any summary="" advocates acknowledge that the change is an improvement. I am disappointed in that. > >> Clearly John has not found the changes satisfactory, or even >> softened his >> stance. > > I've not seen any proposed changes to consider. I'm referring to the change from summary="" being nonconforming, to being conforming but marked obsolete (thus requiring a warning). Based on previous statements and the list of arguments against completely omitting summary, I thought this was kind of a big deal. But I haven't seen any change in the arguments presented against the current draft, or any softening of language used to oppose it. Building consensus sometimes requires compromise. So far I have not seen a lot of willingness to budge from the accessibility faction, or even willingness to consider that there might be more than one acceptable answer. That makes me feel like it's not a good use of my time to propose and advocate middle ground solutions. Regards, Maciej
Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 06:15:49 UTC