- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:40:00 -0500
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Laura Carlson<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Shelley, > > You wrote to Maciej: > >> I appreciate that you tried to find a compromise, and admire your >> effort. But the issue really isn't between Ian and John. > > +1 > > Table summary is an open issue in the HTML WG Tracker. And it should > be marked as open in the spec, whether John's or Ian's or some > combination of words are used. > > Cynthia Shelly has Action 128 to "Work with PF to find an owner for > drafting @summary text proposal" [1]. Let's give Cynthia a chance. > > Best Regards, > Laura > I was not aware that Cynthia was specifically tasked with this. Then, yes, agree 100%: we need to give her time to do her job. Shelley > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Shelley Powers<shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak<mjs@apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Shelley, >>> >>> On Aug 4, 2009, at 12:02 PM, Shelley Powers wrote: >>> >>>> All due respect to John and Ian, but I would object to your compromise. >>> >>> I'd like to see if we can give consensus-building a chance to work before we >>> jump into a new round of flaming. So let's give John and Ian a chance to >>> comment. If anyone feels their views are not adequately represented by >>> either John or Ian, then feel free to state additional objections with >>> rationale. But first, let's give peace a chance. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Maciej >>> >>> >> >> This is not flaming. This is me disagreeing with your solution. >> >> You started out providing what I felt were good directions in how to >> differentiate between the other examples and summary, but then you >> still include summary as "obsolete but conforming", which will >> generate a warning (or error, not sure which) in validators. >> >> You just gave a reason why summary should still be active, and >> conforming, but then took it away immediately by saying its use will >> generate a warning, and that the other approaches should be used >> instead. >> >> The alternatives and the summary attribute are all described in the >> same place in the document. I am assuming folks can read all of the >> approaches. And if your text is associated with the section (about >> differentiating when to use one over the other), that should be >> enough. >> >> What you've done, though, is create confusion for people who have used >> summary, correctly, in the past, when they're moving to HTML 5. >> They'll get warnings, but they're using summary correctly -- can you >> imagine the complications this could cause? And people will be getting >> warnings when they use it correctly in new documents, too. >> >> I do not agree with making summary "obsolete but conforming" or >> specifically highlighting it for warning. And I'm not following any >> mandate, other than my own judgment of what's right or not. I don't >> think this is the right approach. >> >> Now, John can work with you to go back to the WCAG group, and that's >> cool, but until someone comes up with a good replacement for the >> _same_ functionality, I'm staying with summary. >> >> Now, I appreciate that you tried to find a compromise, and admire your >> effort. But the issue really isn't between Ian and John. >> >> Shelley > > -- > Laura L. Carlson >
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 20:40:41 UTC