- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:47:27 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > ... >> Your sampling is flawed because it doesn't account for a significant >> number of web pages that are not accessible to the public. > > Pages that are not part of the Web do not need to use a standard > interoperable across the entire Web, they can use proprietary formats. > ... Sorry? I think this is something we need to discuss. Just because a web-based application only runs on an intranet doesn't mean it's irrelevant. It just means it is harder to collect data about it. > ... > We are eliminating all the aspects of tables that make it suitable for > layout (all the presentational attributes) in an even stronger fashion > than sumamry="". While <table summary> is conforming but discouraged, > <table width>, <tr bgcolor>, etc, are all completely obsolete and not in > any sense conforming now. > > If you have an alterantive solution for tabular data that is less likely > to be used for layout tables, though, I'm certainly open to suggestions. > > With summary="" we can improve matters. So we should. > ... I think it has been pointed out many times that HTML5 currently does not contain any improvement, in that none of the alternatives being proposed actually addresses the original use case. > ... >> I don't believe that JAWS or other assistive technology applications >> will immediately make changes to their tools based on a Working Draft >> that is under a great deal of contention. > > HTML5 doesn't require any change. It keeps summary="" in the > implementation requirements unchanged. (In fact I would go further -- it > introduces implementation requirements that HTML4 did not have.) > ... HTML5 requires changes for those who want (or have to) to create conforming content (where I understand "conforming" as passing a validator without warning). > ... > If you want to make summary="" conforming and not obsolete, then we will > need reasoned arguments and research to demonstrate why this is expected > to improve accessibility. For example, as a start, the PFWG could respond > to the questions in this e-mail: > ... Actually, I think the burden is on those who want a change compared to what HTML4 said. > ... BR, Julian
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 06:48:21 UTC