RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> 
> The 

<em>editor's</em> 

> 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.

The language is not "discouraging": it is specifically stated not to use
the attribute. (Ian: "Fine, we'll make it conformant but obsolete so that
it won't get used, and I'll tell everyone not to use it in the spec")

> 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.

The current Draft text is not a compromise, as that infers that there was
a discussion and good faith proposal to arrive at that position.  Instead,
it is language and status that has been imposed by one person, and the
'solution' directly contradicts other W3C Recommendations with impunity.
The 'real' status of @summary remains an unanswered question, as noted via
the HTML 5 Issue Tracker. 

How would WHAT WG and Apple feel if the W3C PFWG issued an official
statement that suggested that "...using <canvas> today would directly
place content authors in legal jeopardy of Human Rights challenges around
the world"? (This is as equally a valid opinion as "@summary harms
accessibility" - it is in fact based upon interpretation of facts and
understanding of subject matter context).  I'm sure that HTML WG, WHAT WG
and Apple would all feel that WAI PFWG was meddling in an area that was
outside of their responsibility, and was prejudicing their current
efforts.  Walk a mile in the others shoes Maciej...

> But I haven't seen any summary="" advocates acknowledge
> that the change is an improvement. I am disappointed in that.

While I cannot speak for others, I do not see this as an improvement; I
see it as a petulant slap in the face and a travesty of the notion of
compromise, consensus and W3C Protocols.

> 
> I'm referring to the change from summary="" being nonconforming, to
> being conforming but marked obsolete (thus requiring a warning).

If this had been floated as a discussion point, if it had been examined as
a potential mid-way point via the channels we are told to use (html-public
mailing list), then there would have been dialog.  The problem here is
that we weren't talked with, we've been talked to; this is Ian's idea of
compromise, but compromise requires agreement on both sides, and that has
never happened, because the opportunity to agree or disagree was removed
from the equation.  It's like saying I will soften the statement from
above to read: "...using <canvas> today *MIGHT* directly place content
authors in legal jeopardy of Human Rights challenges" - that's a
compromise position too, but is it acceptable?

> 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.

Then with respect Maciej, your understanding of the sticking points is
slightly off the mark.  I have tried via this recent thread to explain why
the current draft language is offensive (at least to me), and why I cannot
continue to agree with how these decisions are being arrived at and
implemented.  

> 
> 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.

I cannot or will not speak for others, but I believe that when given the
opportunity to suggest compromise solutions I have offered them in good
faith.  I point to the current status of @alt and note the text in the W3C
ESW Wiki: 
	"The current wording in the editor's draft is Option F (a
variation of John Foliot's proposal)."
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute

Here's another compromise proposal: make @summary conformant but
deprecated (not obsolete), and remove author instruction that tells
authors not to use @summary as this directly contradicts WCAG 2.  This
position sunsets @summary (WHAT WG's desire), while respecting the current
WCAG 2 document that was arrived at via *years* of discussion and review.
If WHAT WG/HTML WG wishes to approach WAI PFWG with the suggestion of
revising guidance surrounding @summary, based upon the evidence they have
collected, then I am sure that PFWG would listen attentively and take the
request seriously - and I would advocate just as loudly then to do so as I
am now for acceptance of W3C protocol. *This* is how the W3C is supposed
to work.

> That makes me feel like it's not a good use of my
> time to propose and advocate middle ground solutions.

Maciej, you have indeed engaged in dialog and I appreciate that fact.  I
have tried to be even tempered and honest here, and hope that you can
appreciate that too.

JF

Received on Saturday, 1 August 2009 17:36:12 UTC