- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 08:04:32 +0000 (UTC)
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, John Foliot wrote: > > The current draft is worse off, as it has been modified since April 29th > based purely upon Ian's ego and opinion, and not by consensus or > protocol. It's clearly not based purely on my opinion, since I disagree with what it says (I think we should throw summary="" out completely). It was written in the exact same way everything else in the HTML5 draft standard was written, namely, by going through feedback of a technical nature and making determinations as to the relative merits of reasoned arguments and the lessons that can be learnt from objective research. On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Sam Ruby wrote: > > John's two requests are detailed here: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0001.html Thanks Sam. The first request there is: | 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). My preference would be to restore this | attribute to its current HTML 4/XHTML 1 status, but I can live with it | simply being an unanswered question at this time with *no* status | outside of open and in "limbo", as at least that is accurate and | truthful. Done. The second request is: | More importantly however, is to remove the author guidance that today | explicitly contradicts existing, W3C approved Accessibility Guidance as | written in WCAG 2. I don't know which author guidance that is. Could I request more specific feedback for this request? On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > 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. For what it's worth, it's also making me feel like maybe I should have trusted my original judgement and just left summary="" as non-conforming. I've repeatedly asked for reasoned arguments and research from the "pro- summary" advocates, only to be faced with accusations that I am ignoring due process. For many years now I have been crystal clear on the process that I am following: bring forward reasoned arguments and data, and I change the spec. The reason I don't do what the PFWG have demanded (and there really is no other word for it) is that there has been zero reasoning given, just position statements with no reasoning. My e-mails asking for reasoning were faced with no response. I'm _still_ waiting for a reply to these e-mails: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0173.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0262.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0766.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0778.html ...that has any reasoned arguments or data. Over the past few weeks I have stopped changing the summary="" section because Joshue asked me to stop changing it in preparation for a vote. Since no vote has occured since that request, I'm going to resume responding to the few e-mails (two from Maciej, one from Murray) that I have pending on the subject in the coming days. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 08:05:17 UTC