RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2

Sam Ruby wrote:
> My read of John's objections is that it 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.

And I might add, most specifically item #5 on my list, the removal of
author guidance surrounding accessibility that contradicts WAI's current
guidance.  It is not, I repeat NOT, WHAT WG or the editors job to change
existing W3C guidance here unilaterally.  I have stated numerous times
that I would support, wholeheartedly, Ian, Maciej or any other WHAT WG
member's approach to the WAI PFWG to ask to re-open this issue and
re-write current guidance.  But as the W3C has a process to do this, I
request and expect that this process be followed.  There have been
complaints of slow response times from PFWG to which I have offered to
approach Judy Brewer directly in an attempt to break any log jam.

Frankly I really don't care about @summary enough to be spending all this
time and effort on: it is an open action item at the HTML WG (Issue 32),
that has been making its way through process.  I would abide by any
decision reached that way.  I take serious umbrage however with the fact
that the current editor sees fit to pre-ordain the result, and moreover
tell content authors to ignore existing WAI guidance.  It is simply too
early to be making these pronouncements. (My concern is compounded by the
fact that while we are talking about a Working Draft, the general public
is using this Working Draft as a defacto standard today - a situation that
is tacitly approved by the underwriters of the WHAT WG.  For this reason,
'pronouncements' made in the Draft have real consequences.)

However, since the HTML 5 draft does not allow for an intermediary state
between 'conformant' and 'obsolete but conformant' which requires language
that tells authors to not use the element/attribute in question (a binary
choice as opposed to a state of transition), I have no choice but to add
the first 4 items in my list, so that I can arrive at #5.

> 1) add @summary as a conformant attribute of the table element
> (
> 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

Maciej asked for alternative compromise solutions, and I offered one last
night.  Here's another:
 1) Remove the obligation of 'obsolete but conformant' status to include
author guidance, (which then allows)

 2) do what you will with @summary until such time as Issue 32 is

 3) *BUT* remove the egregious text that states: "Authors should not
specify the summary attribute on table elements.", at least until such
time as the HTML WG formally approaches WAI PFWG with their case, and a
formal request to revisit current guidance is made.

Work within W3C protocols and I will assist in any way I can. Flaunt W3C
protocol and process, and I will fight every step of the way.

I have repeatedly and clearly stated that this is a philosophical problem,
and not a technical problem; it is once again about perception and about
who is actually the right working group to speak to accessibility
techniques. HTML WG is not that group.

> Propose
> a draft that addresses John's concerns, and we can discuss that
> instead,
> and possibly not even have a poll at all

And I have repeatedly left that on the table as well, and will continue
doing so until such time as Sam puts forth a formal poll request.


> - Sam Ruby
> [1]

Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 23:03:26 UTC