W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

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

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:54:49 -0500
Message-ID: <4A750E09.7050108@burningbird.net>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
CC: 'Maciej Stachowiak' <mjs@apple.com>, '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>

>> 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.

Ah, OK. I must admit that I'm thinking beyond the heartbeat document,  
which probably means my input should have waited until this particular 
debate is over.

I agree with you that there is conflicting guidance about summary. 
Conflicting, and confusing, and not necessarily following any technical 
specification, or document I know of.

> JF
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 03:55:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:52 UTC