- From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 10:11:00 -0400
- To: "'John Foliot'" <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
John - Thanks! That clarification makes sense; the difference between adhering to (as I thought you meant) and not contradicting is subtle, but important. J.Ja > -----Original Message----- > From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of John Foliot > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:39 AM > To: 'Justin James'; 'Ian Hickson'; 'Sam Ruby' > Cc: 'HTML WG' > Subject: RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2 > > Justin James wrote: > > > > > > What John wants (to the best of my understanding) is for the draft to > > reflect the WCAG/WAI documents/findings/recommendations (it's not > quite > > clear to me what the formal status of their guidance on @summary is). > > I simply want the draft to *not* contradict WAI. I have consistently > suggested that the status of @summary is not the issue, it is the > contradictory language that accompanies the 'obsolete but conformant' > status that tells authors to not use summary that is the current issue, > as > it undermines WCAG and WAI. > > I have repeatedly stated that removing that text would remove my > objection, but apparently Ian cannot see his way to doing that, because > he > has 'data' (failing to recognize that the problem has NOTHING to do > with > data) > > JF
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 14:11:54 UTC