- From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:54:49 -0500
- 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 > > Shelley
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 03:55:30 UTC