- From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 23:33:54 -0500
- To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Shelley Powers wrote: > >> On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Shelley Powers wrote: >> >>> The decision about summary was based on an analysis of data pulled >>> from web pages scraped from the internet[1]. What's been ignored in >>> the discussions related to the incorrect use of the summary >>> attribute is that only about one in 1,000 HTML tables reflect >>> correct HTML table use. So, accuracy when it comes to past use of >>> HTML tables is just something that one can't "accurately" assess. >>> The raw data is interesting, but we can't draw conclusions from it. >>> >> >> We can if we have sufficiently large corpuses. >> >> > Ian, you're not answering the issue related to the correlation between > incorrect use of table and incorrect use of summary. Your data is > tainted, you can isolate summary sufficiently to be able to draw a > conclusion. Sorry (tired), correction: You _can't_ isolate summary sufficiently to be able to draw a conclusion. S
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 04:34:37 UTC