- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:56:40 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Ian Hickson wrote: > >> Given this information, there should be absolutely no confusion over >> what the poll is about. > > I would like to request that when the vote is actually put up, It will be a poll not a vote. > there be a > clear statement about exactly what each option means in terms of what > edits I should make to the spec to match the resulting consensus. I honestly don't know how much clearer John Foliot can be[1]. 1) add @summary as a conformant attribute of the table element (4.9.2.1) 2) add explanation of @summary 3) provide cautionary message that @summary is under review and may be made obsolete (aka class="XXX") 4) add example of @summary usage 5) remove @summary from 12.1 Conforming but obsolete features > Ideally > this should say what the constraints are on the resulting text, so that I > still have editorial freedom in terms of how the requirements are actually > phrased, since the phrasing of individual requirements is sometimes > changed en bloc to address feedback regarding stylistic choices. (For > example, sometimes series of paragraphs are turned into tables, or common > phrases are factored out into common definitions.) My read of John's objections is that is was not his intent to produce a fork, nor was it his intent to become an editor, but it was his intent to get these specific changes into this specific Working Draft. Propose a draft that addresses John's concerns, and we can discuss that instead, and possibly not even have a poll at all. - Sam Ruby [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0080.html
Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 21:57:22 UTC