Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> On Aug 4, 2009, at 1:16 PM, Laura Carlson 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.
>>> I'm not inclined to withdraw my compromise proposal, just because 
>>> someone else has 9 days left to find yet another person to eventually 
>>> make a different proposal. But I welcome comments on the substance.
>> No one is asking you to withdraw your proposal.  I believe that all 
>> that is being pointed out is that Cynthia will not forfeit her 
>> opportunity to present a proposal simply because you have prepared one.
> I haven't asked anyone to forfeit their opportunity to present a 
> proposal. But my perception (perhaps incorrect) was that this was cited 
> as a reason to fail to give substantive consideration to my proposal at 
> this time.

Fair enough.

As for my (personal, not in my role as a chair) comment: I am deeply 
skeptical about any spec language which requires conformance checkers to 
provide mandatory advice except in cases where EITHER such advice is 
required for browser interop OR it is likely that that such advice will 
be widely followed.

But that's just an opinion, and won't block this group from attaining 

>> I will confirm that Cynthia is making good progress.  I met with her 
>> last week and this week I have seen a first draft of @summary text 
>> proposal that hopefully she will be ready to present to the group 
>> shortly.  If you are looking towards producing something that could be 
>> workable as a long-term solution, it would make sense to factor this in.
>> I will also note that Cynthia has not historically had the bandwidth 
>> to participate in this mailing list, but often does find the time to 
>> attend the weekly teleconferences.
>> I am quite willing to decouple the near term need for a poll (should 
>> there still be a desire to have one) from your activities (which 
>> apparently are focused on the longer term).
> I'm willing and able to attend the telecon this week to discuss my 
> summary="" proposal, as well as anyone else's, if you think that would 
> be helpful.

I'm confident that summary will be on the agenda.  Your participation 
would be (and has been and is now) helpful.  I don't have confirmation 
that Cynthia will make this particular call, though she generally does.

> Regards,
> Maciej

- Sam Ruby

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 21:28:06 UTC