Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

On Aug 4, 2009, at 2:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Aug 4, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Aug 4, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>> No, I mean a summary attribute being present at all, regardless  
>>>> of its value. What do you think should be the validator behavior  
>>>> for that case?
>>>> ...
>>> Unless the validator develops sufficient intelligence so that it  
>>> can tell a good summary value from a bad one, it should stay silent.
>> I think silence is not an approach that will get buy-in from people  
>> who think summary is problematic.
> We have no need for their buy-in.

If we don't have broad buy-in, then we don't have consensus, in which  
case we need to resolve the issue in another way, such as a vote. I'd  
rather find a resolution that everyone can live with, but if we can't  
do that, then so it goes.

> The opinion that summary is not usefully distinct from all other
> forms of caption mark-up has been proven wrong.  Do you disagree?
> If so, then refute my argument.  If not, then there is no need to
> find a compromise of opinions and Ian should fix the offending text
> before it is published as a WD.

I think your example is a plausible use case, and I have no wish to  
argue against it. My proposal doesn't take the position that summary  
is never useful. It takes the position that authors should be advised  
to consider alternatives to what we have learned is an error-prone  
construct. I don't think your use case refutes that position.


Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 21:48:12 UTC