RE: The meaning of "obsolete" in HTML5 (was Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll)

Shelley Powers wrote:
> PS I also wanted to add that John mentioned about summary being
> deprecated if the older use of the terms (deprecated/obsolete) were
> restored to HTML 5. In that I would disagree with him, at least at this
> time.

<smile> ...and in a civil discussion we are free to disagree.  I
personally suggested moving @summary to deprecated in an effort to prompt
continued dialog.  I did not mean to suggest that I spoke for all - simply
for me - but did so in an effort of suggesting alternatives to the current
impasse.  If we get to the vote state, it might be one item to consider
voting upon, amongst many.  I am not as intractable as some might think.

> That's not to say in the next month or two, folks might come up with a
> preferred replacement for summary. If so, then deprecating summary, as
> deprecating is meant in HTML 4, would make a great deal of sense.

Exactly.  There is a pressing need however to create a heartbeat document
very soon...  My preference would be to leave @summary as undetermined,
but if that is a 'state' that the processors/validators cannot handle,
then deprecated is a temporary middle ground that I *personally* could
live with at this time, although I cannot speak for others within either
the HTML WG or the web accessibility community.  I am more concerned
however about the conflicting guidance issue than whether or not @summary
meets a gold standard solution... in fairness the evidence against its
implementation cannot be willed away either.


Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 03:26:09 UTC